What is it about?

The rise of linear perspective caused many polemics throughout quattrocento and cinquecento, opposing the supporters of artificial geometrisation of sight to those who were praising the qualities of the drawing according to nature, or were invoking some arguments on physiological basis. These debates can be recalled starting from the four alternatives that form the hard core of them: restricted vs. broad field of vision, ocular immobility vs. mobility; curvilinear vs. planar picture, monocular vs. binocular vision. By retaining the first terms of these four alternatives, the history of perspective eliminated many heterodox constructions. From the mathematisation viewpoint, the interest of these debates is that they have succeeded, not preceded, the adoption of perspective system, defined by the intersection of the visual pyramid.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The history of linear perspective is a case where basic principles came after the practice. It shows an a posteriori justification or, so to speak, an upside down mathematisation.

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Les débats sur les fondements de la perspective linéaire de Piero della Francesca à Egnatio Danti: un cas de mathématisation à rebours, Early Science and Medicine, January 2010, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/157338210x516297.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page