Brandon Burns February 1st, 2014

Art 6H S. Sosa

Renaissance Perspective
Reading Response #1

1. The system of linear perspective is comprised of two critical elements; a central point, or vanishing point, and the horizon line. The vanishing point is a point that lies on the horizon and is placed, in Renaissance art and sculpture as defined by Leon Battista Alberti, centrally in the art space. The vanishing point is the theoretical point at which all lines in the artwork vanish and become a point, but its significance was not greatly noted by Alberti other than it being a geometrical reference. All geometrical faces not perpendicular the physical front of the painting or intended viewpoint will have edges and faces that draw towards the vanishing point in one way or another which gives architecture and geometrical shapes more depth and realism. The linear perspective in the Italian Renascence seems to me, based what I read from the knowledge gathered by Samuel Y. Edgerton Junior in his book The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective, to be a desire to achieve a closer representation of perfection through arithmetic and geometry so that religious paintings could become closer to perfect and therefore closer to the orderly realm of God. Examples of linear perspective can be found in the works of early users of linear perspective such as Donatello, Masolino da Panicale, Donato di Niccol di Betto Bardi, and Masaccio. Masaccio is also believed to be the first artist to use linear perspective. The very earliest cases of linear perspective can be found in Masaccios Trinity (c. 1425, Fresco, 263 in 125 in) where he illustrates the ceilings perspective by slanting all geometric construction lines towards the central point in the

Brandon Burns February 1st, 2014

Art 6H S. Sosa

painting. Other examples of linear perspective include Masaccio and Masolinos Tribute Money (c. 1427, Fresco) and Healing of the Cripple and Raising of Tabitha (c. 1427, Fresco).

2. Though Leon Battista Alberti and Filippo Brunelleschi pioneered the advent of linear perspective, it was Brunelleschis good friends Donatello and Masaccio who in 1425 were the first to paint and sculpt using linear perspective. Masolino is also notable for his early adoption of linear perspective shortly after 1425 when he did art with Masaccio and later became a successful artist painting without working with Masaccio.

3. The moral and the practical application of arithmetic and geometry caused the city of Florence to not only change drastically in way of knowledge but to also change the way artists presented their paintings and sculptures by using linear perspective, which was a system that used arithmetic and geometry to create space within a painting or sculpture.

4. As I said in answer 1, renaissance painters adopted linear perspective to achieve a closer representation of perfection through arithmetic and geometry so that religious paintings could become closer to perfect and therefore closer to the orderly realm of God. I believe that they were attempting to make the most symmetric, most logical, most mathematically correct worlds for their painting, their architecture, and their city as possible because as Alberti saw the how the organization of farmland in Tuscany improved the profits and prosperity of the landscape, so would the organization of art, architecture, and city improve Florence. As the popularity and success of Florentine art grew, so did the popularity of linear perspective in the renaissance.

Brandon Burns February 1st, 2014

Art 6H S. Sosa

5. Edgerton gave a detailed analysis for the reasons why Domenico Veneziano disregarded many of the rules on linear perspective when he composed Madonna and Child Adored by Saints (c. 1410-1461) and I do agree with Edgertons assumptions as to why he composed this painting in a way that was not in line with Albertis instructions. In Edgertons book on linear perspective, he contrasts many details of the paintings linear perspective geometrical layout versus the geometrical layout instructed by Alberti. Veneziano purposefully sets the horizon line lower in the painting, which is contrary to Albertis instruction which mandates that the horizon line and central point be centered in the space of the art. Edgerton notes that the central point is between the knees of the Virgin Mary, which could possibly be a reference to her being the mother of eternal life in the form of Jesus which could be a symbolic of the central point of all geometry and order comes from the birth of Christ. With the central point and horizon being lower in the scene, the placement of these changes the draw and angle of all the architectural geometry and allows the viewer to see slightly more over and through the architecture out towards the lush greens and it better frames the figures under the architecture, in this case a set of arcs. When Edgerton presented the same painting with the proper linear perspective following Albertis guidelines, the painting to me feels more closed and with less depth. It closes off the top of the painting to where you can no longer see the greenery reaching out from the tops of the architecture. In all, using Albertis system of linear perspective but tuning it for better composition was an educated decision and to me seemed deliberately planned for the composition of the piece. When Edgerton says [Veneziano] followed the spirit of Albertis instructions even as he violated the letter

Brandon Burns February 1st, 2014

Art 6H S. Sosa

he is saying that Veneziano did follow the ideas of linear perspective, but he violated the letter by changing the system to fit his needs for the composition which ultimately created a painting with much more depth and life than would have been achieved by carefully following all of Albertis instruction to the letter.