G e n e r a l

a r t i c l e

ontheProblemof reversePerspective: definitionseastandWest

Clemena Antonova
abstract

udolf arnheim, in an article in Leonardo, wrote,invertedperspectiveisasmallmatter[1].Iwillbe using the term reverse perspective henceforth, following Christopher Woods translation of Panofskys Perspective as Symbolic Form [2]andtheenglishtranslationofFlorenskys collectionofessaysBeyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of Art [3].Certainly,mostarthistorianswouldbeawarethatreverseperspectivereferstotheprincipleoforganizingspace appliedintheByzantineandByzantining[4]image.Inthe attempttodescribethephenomenonofreverseperspective, however,aproblemstartstoemerge,becauseitbecomesclear thatdifferentscholarsfollowdifferent,frequentlycontradictory,definitions. BelowIlookatthehistoryofthetheoryofreverseperspectiveinthe20thcentury.ThemajorwritingsarebyGerman andrussianauthors.Ihaveidentifiedsixdistinctviewson reverseperspective,althoughtheremaybeothers.oftenthe sameauthorswitchesfromonepositiontoanother,without realizingthattheyaremutuallyexclusive.Ibrieflyoutlinefour definitionsofreverseperspectivethathavebeencirculatingin bothWesternandrussianscholarship,andIpointoutsome ofthemainproblemswiththem.Ithenconsidertwofurther viewsproposedbyrussianauthorsthathavebeenleftina fragmentaryformbutcanneverthelessoffervaluableinsights. Themostusefulcontributionofrussiantheorytothesubject, Ibelieve,isthesuggestionofapictorialspacethatisfundamentallydifferentfromthethree-dimensionalspacealltoo frequentlytakenforgrantedbyviewersaccustomedtoimages intheWesterntradition.

What Does ReveRse PeRsPective Mean?

The term umgekehrte Perspektive (reverse perspective) was coinedbyoskarWulffatthebeginningofthe20thcentury. InWulffs1907article[5],severaloverlappingviewsonthe natureofspaceinByzantineartareadvanced.accordingto Wulff,theByzantineiconischaracterizedbyasummaryof perspectives(perspektivischen Zusammenfassung)[6].Theview fromabove(Niedersicht),orbirdseye-view(Vogelperspektive),is combinedwiththefrontalview(Gesichtsvorstellung).Figure1 canbemadesenseofalongexactlytheselinesofinterpreta-

Clemenaantonova(researcher),CentreforadvancedStudies(VLaC),royal FlemishacademyofBelgium,1Hertogstraat,1000Brussels,Belgium.e-mail: <clemenaa@yahoo.com>.

tion.Theroundshapeofthelake isduetotheviewfromabove,while allthefiguresaredepictedasseen fromtheside.Thebirdseye-view, whichhashadaverylonghistory inartandiscommonforinstance in ancient egyptian art, is rather straightforward to understand in visual terms. The problem arises when Wulff discusses the frontal view. according to the German writer,theartistismentally drawn inside thepictorialspacebytheveryarrangementoffigures andobjects,wherebytheonesinthedistanceareshownas larger(insteadofsmaller,aswouldhappeninnaturalvision). Therefore,theartistand,byimplication,theviewer,adopt aninnerperspective(inneren Anschauung),thatis,apointof viewsituatedinsidethepictorialspace,whichcoincideswith theviewasitwouldbeperceivedbythedominatingcentral figureoftherepresentedaction[7].Fromthisinnerpointof view,itisimplied,thesizeofobjectsandthepictorialspacewill lookright,asobjectsfurtherawaywillappearsmallerthan thoseclosertothemainfigureoftherepresentation.However, Wulfffurtherproposesthattheoriginsofreverseperspective shouldbesoughtinclassicalGreekscenography,which,tocite Proclus(411485a.d.),isabranchofoptics,whichshowshow objectsatvariousdistancesandofvariousheightsmaybeso representedthattheywillnotappearoutofproportionand distortedinshape[8].Inotherwords,whenscenographyis appliedtopainting,figuresinhighplaces,which,asaresult, areseenunderawiderangleofvision,aredepictedaslarger insizeinordertocounteractthediminutionduetothevisual angleandthedistanceofthefigurefromthebeholder.This was a well-known procedure in antiquity, and Wulff rightly claimsthatitwasalsoemployedinByzantineart. Iconsideritusefultoprovidethisbriefoutlineofthemain ideasthatariseinWulffsarticle,asalmostalllaterwritingson reverseperspectivecomeasaresponsetoideasmentionedby theGermanauthor,butthetextitselfishardtoaccess(there hasbeennoreprintsince1907).Scholarlyinterestthroughout the 20th century focused on Wulffs notion of reverse perspective,whileitwasforgottenthatasmuchasitdescribed thefrontalview,thisnotionreferredtoonlyoneaspectof spaceintheicon.asaresult,whileWulffsawspaceinByzantineartashighlycomplex,thisissuewasfrequentlymuch simplifiedbylaterauthors.Furthermore,whatalsoescaped attentionwasthatWulffsunderstandingofreverseperspec-

he author considers the history of the theory of reverse perspective in the 20th century. She identifies six distinct views on reverse perspective, some of which are mutually exclusive. The first four definitions have circulated in both Western and Russian scholarship, while two further views proposed by Russian authors are little known in the West. The most useful contribution of Russian theory to the subject is the suggestion of a pictorial space fundamentally different from the three-dimensional space frequently taken for granted by Western viewers.

464 Leonardo,Vol.43,no.5,pp.464469,2010

2010 ISAST

tive is contradictory, as it involves two mutually exclusive moments: on the one hand, the inner view thesis refers to the adoption of a viewing position inside the pictorial space; on the other hand, the scenography thesis is clearly basedonthevisionofabeholderoutside thepictorialspace.Theconstructionof spaceinthesecaseswouldbecompletely different. Some authors, especially in russia, followedtheinnerviewthesisandinterpreted reverse perspective as reversing thelawsoflinearrenaissanceperspective.Thaticonsshouldbeviewedbytakingintoaccountthisinsideperspective is a notion much popularized by Boris Uspensky[9]. Themostextremeposition wasprobablythatadoptedbyLevZhegin [10],whichdrewoutwhatwereinmany waysthelogicalimplicationsofWulffs position.Zheginconsistentlyemployed theterminologyofthevanishingpointin ordertoexplainthephenomenoncommoniniconswherebyobjectivelyparallel linesofobjectsarerepresentedasdiverginginthedistance.Inthefamousapse mosaicofHagiaSophiainwhatwasthen Constantinople,forinstance,thelateral sidesofthefootstoolclearlydiverge(Fig. 2). From the inner view proposed by Wulff,theparallellinesofthedepicted objectswouldappeartoconverge,ashappensinstandardlinearperspective,and iftheseparallellineswereextendedthey wouldmeetatavanishingpointlocated intheviewersspace[11]. otherauthorshavereadWulffmainly throughthelensofhisideaoftheorigins of reverse perspective in scenography. Thus,atonepointinhistext,Florensky claimsthatreverseperspectivedescribes the phenomenon whereby the magnitude of the figures increases as they appear further up the fresco, i.e., the furtherawaytheyarefromtheviewer [12].asimilarinterpretationofreverse perspectiveisadvancedinmuchmorerecentwritingsaswell,asinthefollowing passage:ThroughouttheMiddleages weobserve,however,thattheso-called reversedperspectiveprevails.Ithasbeen understoodinconnectionwiththeidea thatoneshouldcompensatefordistortions when paintings are seen either fromfarofforhighupinarchitecture [13].Theartisticphenomenonthatthese writers refer to was described by otto demusasanti-perspectiveornegative perspective[14]andastypicalofByzantinechurchdecorationoftheclassical,middleperiod(theendofthe9thto theendofthe11thc.).Theproportions offiguresdepictedaboveeyeleveland/ oroncurvedsurfaceswouldneedtobe

adjusted(forinstance,byelongatingthe proportions)inordertoappearright whenviewedfromtheground.Itwasthis procedureofadjustmentthatwascalled bydemusanti-perspective. Inotherwords,twodistinctdefinitions of reverse perspective have emerged fromWulffsarticletheinnerviewthesis, elaborated into a contrast between reverseandlinearperspective,andthe scenography thesis. a third definition, whichcouldbedescribedasthehierarchicalsizethesis,wasproposedbyKarl doehlemannsoonafterthepublication ofWulffsarticle. In 1910, doehlemann wrote a short pieceinwhichhechallengedWulffsview mainlyonthegroundsthatthisviewpresupposesasystematicspace,whilespace intheiconisclearlynon-systematic.not surprisingly,laterscholarshaverevisited thiscrucialproblem,asthedebatebetweenJ.J.GibsonandnelsonGoodman in Leonardo shows [15]. doehlemann himself proposed a hierarchical explanationofreverseperspective[16].The ideathatsomeobjectsiniconsarerepresented as larger in size even though they are further away from the viewer isduenottothedivergenceofparallel lines (as Wulff had suggested) but to thepracticeofdepictinghierarchically moreimportantfiguresaslargerinsize thanlessimportantones.doehlemanns understanding of reverse perspective, althoughlessinfluentialthanWulffs,is sometimesreferredtobylaterauthors. John White, for instance, in his very well-known book The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space (1957), views reverse perspectiveexactlyalongtheselines,as whenheexplainsthatthedifficultyis

thatvariationsinfigurescaleareneither dependentonanyspatialrelationships within the composition nor upon the relationshipofthesceneasawholeto the observer [17]. The deciding factor,accordingtoWhite,istheinvariableimportancewhich,foronereason oranother,isattachedtoeachparticular figure[18]. Manyauthors,however,donotseemto beawarethatdoehlemannsviewcannot coexistwithWulffs.aserwinPanofsky madeclear, thetwodefinitionsofreverse perspectiveprofoundlyconflict(Panofskyhimselftookthepartofdoehlemann inthedebate)[19].atthesametime, arnheiminhisarticlementionedabove definesreverseperspectiveascharacterizedbytwopictorialfeatures.Thefirst featureistherenderingofrelativesize, theallegedinversionofsizerelations [20]or,inotherwords,thesetofrelations identified by doehlemann. The secondhastodowiththerenderingof geometricallyshapedplanes,hollowenclosuresandsolids[21]or,insimpler words,withtherepresentationofgeometricallyshapedvolumesinamanner contrary to what the rules prescribe [22](therulesare,presumably,those oflinearperspective).arnheimsvisual examplesillustratingthissecondfeature ofreverseperspectiveareborroweddirectly from Wulff, as is the main idea. nothing suggests, however, that if the sizes of objects were hierarchical and symbolic,thesesizescouldnotbedeterminedatthesametimebythevisionof aninnervieweror,asarnheimsays,by the way the significant person in the picturewouldsee[therepresentedobjects][23].Inotherwords,arnheims

Fig. 1. The Last Judgement, detail, cathedral of santa Maria assunta, torcello, italy; mosaic, Western wall; by permission of the svetlana tomekovic Database.

Antonova,ontheProblemofreversePerspective

465

Fig. 2. The Virgin and Child, apse mosaic, view from scaffolding, 9th c., Hagia sophia, istanbul; by permission of Dumbarton Oaks, image collections and Fieldwork archives, Washington, D.c.

two pictorial features are mutually exclusive. a fourth viewwhichI will callthe optical view thesisis proposed by a numberofstudiesthathaveattempted to prove that reverse perspective is somehowtruetothewayhumanvision actually functions. In this case, reverse perspectivehastendedtobeunderstood alongthelinesoftheinnerviewthesis andauthorshave,asaresult,addressed theissueofdivergingparallellines,asin theabove-mentionedHagiaSophiamosaic(Fig.2).Theartisticphenomenonof therepresentationofobjectivelystraight linesasdiverginghasbeenapproached by focusing on certain aspects of the highlycomplexprocessofnaturalvision [24].Thus,forinstance,Florenskysmain objectiveinhiscomparisonoflinearand reverseperspectiveistoprovethat,while the former does not take into account certainfactorsofnaturalvision,suchas memory,thelatterdoes[25].arnheim hasthesameconcernforshowingtheopticalveracityofreverseperspectivewhen he refers to a well known optical illusionwherebytheedgesofobjectsdrawn asparallelsinreverseperspectiveappear to the Western viewer, accustomed to strong depth values, to diverge toward thedistance.Thesuggestionisinterestingasitdrawsattentiontotheideathat thetraditionofpaintingweareusedto ingrainscertainexpectationswithinus,

andinthiscaseWesternviewersseedivergenceswhereeasternersseeparallels [26].Followingasimilarlineofthought, amorerecentarticleinPerception makes acaseforthepresenceofdivergentperspectiveintheperceptionofobliquely viewedobjects[27].Inotherwords,the authorsofferanexplanationofreverse perspectiveascorrespondingtotheway inwhichvisionfunctionsundercertain conditions, more specifically when objectsareviewedfromanobliqueangle. Thetwoexperimentsreportedshowed that the larger the viewers displacementandthemoreobliquetheangle, themoreintensivelyconvergentwould be the sides of the presumably objectivelyrectangularobject.Inthisway,an obliquelyviewedrectangleisperceivedas adivergenttrapezium[28],ashappens innumerousrepresentationsofsimple geometricalobjectssuchasthefootstool intheHagiaSophiamosaic. allfour,clearlyverydifferent,definitionsofreverseperspectivetheinner viewthesis,thescenographythesis,the hierarchical-size thesis and the optical view thesishave been in circulation throughout the 20th century and uptopresent.noneofthem,Ibelieve, adequately describes the phenomenon under our attention. What is perhaps moststrikingistheapplicationofterminologydevisedtodescriberenaissance mathematicalperspectivetothecategori-

callydifferentphenomenonofspacein Byzantine and Byzantining images, a problemweaddressedinajointarticle withMartinKemp[29].Theillegitimate useoftheterminology,however,grows out of a much deeper misunderstandingofthenatureofthepictorialspace oftheicon.atthisstage,Ibelievethat itisclearthatspaceiniconartismuch more complex than in linear perspective. It is also fundamentally different fromthelatterandiscertainlynotto use Panofskys wordsan apparently three-dimensional expanse, composed of bodies (or pseudo-bodies such as clouds)andinterstices,thatseemstoextendindefinitely,behindtheobjectively two-dimensionalpaintingsurface[30]. one should remember that Panofskys descriptionisfromatextconcernedwith theriseofthistypeofpictorialspacein otherwords,albertiswindowfigure in13th-centuryItalianpainting.Itwould bemisleadingtoassumea3dspacefor art forms long in existence before the 13th century; when such assumptions aremadetheyinvariablyleadtountenableconclusions.Forinstance,themain thesisinthePerceptionarticlecitedabove proposesthatreverseperspectiveisalegitimatemannerofrepresentingrectangularobjectsseeninthree-dimensional conditions,justaslegitimateunderthe appropriate conditions as convergent perspective[31].Theissuehereisthe predicatedpremiseof3dconditionsin thecaseoftheicon. Thefollowingtwoviews,proposedby russiancriticismonreverseperspective andlittleknownintheWest,arevaluable exactlybecausetheychallengetheidea ofastandard,three-dimensionalpictorial space. They do not quite explain whatanalternativespacewouldlooklike, butitclearlywouldnotbethefrequently assumedthree-dimensionalone.

the Russian contRibution: non-eucliDean GeoMetRy anD suPPleMentaRy Planes

While the russian authors ultimately fail to produce a convincing theory of reverse perspective, their contribution consistsinsomethingnolessimportant. Theyproblematizetheissueanddemonstratethatreverseperspectiveisamuch morecomplexphenomenonthaniscommonly suspected. Some of the insights by russian authors, I believe, though underdevelopedatthisstage,havethe potentialofofferingamuchmoresatisfactoryexplanationthanthefourviews mentionedabove.

466 Antonova,ontheProblemofreversePerspective

Fig. 3. barrel-like deformations: (top left) fragment from an icon, novgorod school, 13th c.; (below) fragment from a miniature, 12th c.; (right) fragment from an icon, italian, 13th c.; Plate Vii in Zhegin [10].

anintriguingidea,firstproposedby FlorenskyandfurtherelaboratedbyZhegin,suggeststhatreverseperspectiveisa visual analogue of non-euclidean geometry. In analogy to non-euclidean geometry,spaceintheiconisinterpreted ascurved,andthisaccountsforthespecificappearanceofmanyobjectsandfiguresintheicon.Tomakesenseofthese representations,wehavetoimaginethe objectsasifspreadoutonaconcavesurface.Itistruethatwefrequentlycome across the curvature of lines that are apparently objectively straight, as with thebarrel-shapedformofthethrone (Fig.3)[32].Thereare,ofcourse,various problemswiththisview,notleastofthem thecomparisonofamedievalphenomenonwithascientifictheorydeveloped only in the 19th century. at this stage, however, what interests me is that the russianauthorsdrawattentiontoapersistentcharacteristicofspaceintheicon thatuntilrecentlywentunnoticedinthe West[33].Moreimportantly,thischaracteristicgrowsoutoftheverynatureofthe

posited curvedand no longer simply linear,three-dimensionalspaceofthe icon. Ifthenon-euclideanconnectionmay pointinthedirectionofafifthlineof thoughtonreverseperspective,thereisa furtherone,againcloselyassociatedwith thenameofFlorensky,whichmightwell bethemostpromisingone.IntheopeningparagraphsofreversePerspective, thediscussionconcentratesonwhatthe russianauthorcallsthesupplementary planesoftheicon.oneofthefundamental features of the organization of iconicspace,accordingtoFlorensky,consistsintherepresentationofpartsand surfaces[ofthesameobject]whichcannotbeseensimultaneously[34]froma fixedposition.Thisprinciplecanexplain imagessuchasFig.4,wherethemodelof thechurchheldbythetwosaintsshows thefrontofthebuildingalongsideone ofthelateralsides.Forexample,atypical representationoftheBiblewouldshow three or four sidesof the book onthe samepictureplane.

as many will undoubtedly notice, Florenskysprincipleofsupplementary planes, whereby frontal and profile aspects of the same object are depicted alongside each other, carries close associations with a similar development in Cubism, especially early analytical Cubism.Itisthereforenotsurprisingto discovertheimmediatebackgroundof therussianauthorsideainhisearlier discussionofPicassospaintingsofmusicalinstruments,whichcouldbeseen in the Shchukin Collection in Moscow atthetime[35].WhattriggeredFlorenskysinterestinPicassosworkswasexactlytheconstructionofpictorialspace, which Florensky saw as an example of syntheticorfour-dimensionalvision. The notion of the fourth dimension, whichwasextremelypopularatthebeginningofthe20thcenturyinthecontextoftherevivalofoccultism,suggested an experience beyond the confines of timeandspace.Thetermssoundinescapablyclosetotheopeningsectionsof reversePerspective:Therealityofthe artisticimageisrealizedin...unifying inoneapperceptionthatwhichisgiven indifferentmomentsand,consequently, underdifferentanglesofvision[36].In thiscontext,thelaternotionofsupplementary planes can be understood as Florenskysattempttoprovideanactual visual model, that is, the icon, for the functioningofsyntheticvision. Florenskysnotionofsupplementary planesispromising,becauseitcanbe developedalongseveralavenues.Inmy recentbook,Space, Time, and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God, I start from Florenskys idea and elaborate it in a theological context. I propose therein that a structural analogy can be drawn between the artistic principleofthesupplementaryplanes oftheiconandtheChristiandogmaof atimelesslyeternal,simultaneouslyexistingGod.abeingwhoexistsbeyondtime and,implicitly,beyondspaceandwho, therefore, has no point of view, would perceiveallaspectsofanobjectinour worldsimultaneously,thatis,inamannersimilartothatdescribedbytheprincipleofsupplementaryplanes.Inother words,toadivinevision,objectswould notappearfromasinglepointofview; allsidesofanobjectwouldbeperceived atthesametime.Inpractice,thesupplementaryplanesnevershowall aspects ofanobject,buttheyshowaspectsthat cannotbeseenfromafixedpositionat onemomentoftime[37]. Thetwoviewsbrieflyoutlinedabove make the useful suggestion of a pictorialspacethatisfundamentallydifferent

Antonova,ontheProblemofreversePerspective

467

cheBeitrgeaugustSchmarsowgewidmetzumfnfzigstenSemesterseinerakademischenLehrttigkeit (Leipzig:K.W.Hiersemann,1907),pp.342. 6.Wulff[5],p.19;seealsop.16. 7.Wulff[5],p.19. 8.Proclus,aCommentarytotheFirstBookofeuclidselements,tr.G.Morrow(Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1970),p.40. 9.BorisUspensky,Semiotics of the Russian Icon (Lisse: PeterderidderPress,1976). 10.LevZhegin,Iazik zhivopisnogo proizvedeniia(The LanguageoftheWorkofart)(Moscow:Iskusstvo, 1970). 11.ForamoredetaileddiscussionofUspenskyand Zhegin,seeClemenaantonovaandMartinKemp, reverse Perspective: Historical Fallacies and an alternative View in Michele emmer, ed., The VisualMindII, (Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2005), pp.399433. 12.Florensky[3].

Fig. 4. Daniel and Danilo Holding Model of a Church, church of the Virgin, Pec, Kosovo; fresco; by permission of the svetlana tomekovic Database.

13.Marcussen,Marianne,SpaceinartisticrepresentationandGeometryinartikleromrumFarve IllusiontilkursuspagrunduddannelsenofBa-tilvalg, (Copenhagen,1996),p.10. 14.ottodemus,ByzantineMosaicdecoration (London:KeganPaul,1948). 15.SeeJ.J.Gibson,TheInformationavailablein Pictures,Leonardo4(1971)andnelsonGoodman, onJ.J.GibsonsnewPerspectiveinthesameissue.dennisCouzinsidedwithGibsonandagreed thatinvertedperspectiveisnotaperspectivesystem (onGibsonsandGoodmansaccountsofdepiction,Leonardo6(1973)p.234). 16.Karldoehlemann,ZurFragedersog.umgekehrtePerspektive,repertoriumfurKunstwissenschaft (Berlin,1910). 17.JohnWhite,TheBirthandrebirthofPictorial Space (London:FaberandFaber,1957),p.103. 18.White[17]. 19.Panofsky[2]. 20.arnheim[1],p.125. 21.arnheim[1]. 22.arnheim[1],p.128. 23.arnheim[1],p.128. 24.ausefulandcleardescriptionofnaturalvision canbefoundinMargaretLivingstone,Visionand art.TheBiologyofSeeing(newYork:abrams,2002) and John Frisby and James V. Stone, Seeing. The ComputationalapproachtoBiologicalVision,2nd ed.(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,2010). 25.Wehavediscussedthisinsomedetailinantonova andKemp[11].Themistakesoflinearperspectivewereacommontoposinrussianarttheory.See Babushinskysarticlewrittenindirectresponseto Florensky (anatolii Babushinsky, Lineinaia perspektivaviskusstveizritelnomvozpriiatii(Linear PerspectiveinartandVisualPerception),Iskusstvo 1,(Moscow,1923). 26.arnheim[1],p.128. 27. Jan dere gowski, denis Parker and Manfredo Massironi,ThePerceptionofSpatialStructurewith obliqueViewing:anexplanationofByzantinePerspective?Perception 23(1994)p.5. 28.deregowski,ParkerandMassironi[27],p.8. 29.Kempandantonova[11]. 30.erwinPanofsky,I Primi Lumi:ItalianTrecento PaintingandItsImpactontherestofeuropeinhis renaissanceandrenascencesinWesternart (new York:Harperandrow,1960),p.120.

fromthestandardspaceoftheWestern tradition. Why, however, did not these russian writers come up with a welldeveloped theory on the basis of their promisingideas?Ibelievethatthereason forthisimpasseinrussianscholarship is,justaswiththeauthorsinWestwediscussedintheprevioussection,theinabilitytocompletelyre-thinktheprinciple of pictorial space in a pre-renaissance art form without relying on any of the renaissancecategoriesrelatingtospace. Borisraushenbach,too,seemstofall intothistrap.InanarticleinLeonardo, hecorrectlyobservesthatitiswrongto makecriticaljudgementsabouttheparallelandinvertedperspectivesofantiquity andtheMiddleagesbyproceedingfrom thedogmasofrenaissanceperspective [38].Icouldnotagreemore.Inalater article,however,therussianauthordefinedreverseperspectiveasreferringto theideathatthedimensionsofobjects increase(ratherthandecrease)withthe distancefromtheviewer[39].Inother words,he,too,takesforgrantedthatpictorialspaceintheiconisgroundedin thenotionofdepthandthecorrespondingdistancebetweenrepresentedobjects andtheassumedviewer.raushenbachs ownunderstandingofreverseperspective is developed on this background. Whathecallsperceptualperspectiveis basedontheideaofthevisionofnearby objects,wherebythesizeconstancy[of theobject]isalmostfull[40].Thatis, whenweseeobjectsatclosequarterswe getafairlygoodideaoftheiractualsize. Inthecaseoftheicon,asinthecaseof Czanne,towhichraushenbachrefers, there is an effort . . . to depict in an undistortedway[41]theactualsizeof

objects, even those objectsthis is the implicationthatarefurtherawayfrom theviewerandsodistortedinsizeby thedistance.Thewholeexplanation,as wecansee,hangsonthenotionofpictorialspace,inwhichobjectsarefurtheror nearertotheviewer.

conclusion
Thetermreverse perspective,coinedbyoskarWulffatthebeginningofthe20th century,hasgainedcurrencyinart-historicalcircles.Thepresentpaperdraws attentiontothestillhighlyproblematic use of the term and thus suggests that farfrombeingasmallmatter,thestate ofresearchonreverseperspectiveisto paraphraseJ.J.Gibsonina deepintellectualmess[42]. references and notes
Unedited references as provided by the author.
1. rudolf arnheim, Inverted Perspective in art: displayandexpression,Leonardo 5(1972)p.125. 2. erwin Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form (newYork:ZoneBooks,1991),note30. 3.PavelFlorensky,reversePerspectiveinPavelFlorensky,BeyondVision:essaysonthePerceptionof art, ed.n.Misler,(London:reaktionBooks,2002), p. 239. For a general introduction to Florenskys works,includingashortbiographicalnote,seemy ChangingPerceptionsofPavelFlorenskyinrussian and Soviet Scholarship in Sergei oushakine and Costica Bradatan, eds., In Marxs Shadow: Knowledge,Power,andIntellectualsineasterneuropeand russia(Lanham:LexingtonBooks,2010),pp.7395. 4.Byzantiningreferstoartformsthatarederived fromtheByzantineartisticmodel. 5.oskarWulff,dieumgekehrtePerspektiveund die niedersicht. eine raumanschauungsform der altbyzantischenKunstundihreFortbildunginder renaissanceinWeizscker,H.,Kunstwissenschaftli-

468 Antonova,ontheProblemofreversePerspective

31.dere gowski,ParkerandMassironi[27],p.12. 32.Forfurthervisualexamplesofcurvature,seeantonovaandKemp[11]. 33.Tomyknowledgeitwasonlyatthe2009MathematicsandCultureCongressinVenice,organized byMicheleemmer,thattheattentionofscholarsin theWestwasattractedtothisidea.Twopapersinthe forthcomingpublicationMatematicaecultura relate toFlorenskysunderstandingofspaceintheiconin analogywithnon-euclideangeometryMicheleemmersPavelFlorenskij,tramatematicaereligione andClemenaantonova,Spazioiconico,geometria noneuclideaeculturanellavisionedelmondodi PavelFlorenskij. 34.Florensky[3]p.201. 35.IhavediscussedthisingreaterdetailinClemena antonova,Space, Time, and Presence in the Icon (Farnham: ashgate Publishers, 2010). on Shchukins Collection,seeCamillaGray,The Great Experiment: Russian Art 18631922(London:ThamesandHudson,1962),pp.63ff. 36. Pavel Florensky, Smisls idealizma in his Sochineniiavchetirekhtomakh (WorksinFourVolumes), Vol.3(Moscow:IzdatelstvoMysl,1999), p.98;thetranslationismine. 37.antonova[35]. 38.Borisraushenbach,PerceptualPerspectiveand CezannesLandscapes, Leonardo 15(1982)p.32. 39. Boris raushenbach, on My Concept of PerceptualPerspectivethataccountsforParalleland Inverted Perspective in Pictorial art, Leonardo 16 (1983)p.28. 40.raushenbach[39],p.28. 41.raushenbach[39],p.28. 42.J.J.Gibsonsreply,Leonardo6(1973)p.284.

Glossary
linear perspectiveamethodofrepresentingspace inpaintingsinventedatthebeginningofthe15th centurybytheFlorentinearchitectFilippoBrunelleschi. The aim is to create the illusion of depth on atwo-dimensionalsurface.Inconcreteterms,the orthogonalsofallparallellinesinthepaintingare extendedsoastomeetinasinglepoint,calledthe vanishingpoint. picture space (or pictorial space)referstotheprincipleoforganizingspaceinpaintings.Frequently, however,itisunderstoodexclusivelyintermsofthe depictedillusionofathirddimensionasthishappens with linear perspective. one should keep in mindthattherearemanyotherwaysofhandling spaceinpictures. reverse perspective (inverse or inversed are also used)theenglishequivalentoftheGerman umgekehrtePerspektive,atermfirstusedbyoskar Wulff.ItusuallyreferstotheprincipleofconstructingspaceintheByzantineandByzantiningicon.The presentarticleoutlinessixdifferentdefinitionsofreverseperspective,someofthemmutuallyexclusive: 1.Theinner viewthesis,firstproposedbyWulff,suggeststhattheviewerofaniconisasifdrawninside thepictorialspaceoftheimageandthusadoptsthe viewpointofthecentralfigureoftherepresentation. Fromthisinnerpointofview,spacefunctionsaccordingtothelawsofnaturalvisioninthesensethat objectsthatarefurtherawaylooksmallerandthose thatarecloserappearlarger. 2.accordingtothescenography thesis,alsoputforwardbyWulff,theproportionsofthefiguresinByzantine and Byzantining images located above eye leveland/oroncurvedsurfacesareadjustedinsuch awayastolookrighttoaviewerontheground. Thisartisticpractice,backedscientificallybyeuclids Optics,goesbacktoclassicalantiquity. 3.Thehierarchical size thesiswasadvancedbyKarl doehlemann as an alternative to Wulffs ideas. It suggeststhatthesizeoffiguresinanicondepends onthehierarchicalimportanceofthesefigures(i.e.

themoreimportantonesarerepresentedaslarger inscalethanthelessimportantones,regardlessof theirrespectivedistancefromtheviewer). 4.Theoptical view thesisisbasedonthebeliefthat spaceintheiconistruetothewaynaturalvision functionsundercertainconditions(forinstance,in viewingatobliqueangles). 5.russianscholarshaveproposedthatspaceinthe iconcanbeinterpretedasavisualanalogueofnoneuclideangeometry.Thisviewisverylittleknownin theWest.Itreliesonananalogybetweenthecurved spaceofnon-euclideangeometryandthefrequent depictionofobjectivelystraightlinesascurvedin iconart. 6.anotheridea,promotedinrussianscholarship, isthatspaceiniconsisconstructedaccordingtothe principleofsupplementary planes,thatis,iconsfrequentlydepictaspectsofanobjectthatcannotbe seensimultaneouslyfromafixedposition. vanishing point (see linear perspective)the pointatwhichtheorthogonalsofparallellinesina paintingarecalculatedtomeet. Manuscriptreceived1May2007.

Clemena Antonova has been working on the problem of the icon with a focus on principles of the construction of pictorial space. Her approach to this material has been largely based on Russian critiques of the medieval image, especially the writings of Pavel Florensky. She recently published her first book, entitled Space,Time,andPresenceintheIcon (Farnham: Ashgate Publishers, 2010), while she has also contributed a dozen academic articles and book chapters devoted to Florenskys work. At present, she is a Fellow at VLAC, the Centre for Advanced Studies at the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium.

Antonova,ontheProblemofreversePerspective

469

Copyright of Leonardo is the property of MIT Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.