Les débats sur les fondements de la perspective linéaire de Piero della Francesca à Egnatio Danti: un cas de mathématisation à rebours
In: Early Science and MedicineSearch for other papers by Dominique Raynaud in
Current site
Google Scholar
In the Quattrocento and Cinquecento the rise of linear perspective caused many polemics which opposed the supporters of an artificial geometrisation of sight to those who were praising the qualities of the drawing according to nature, or were invoking some arguments on a physiological basis. These debates can be grouped according to the four alternatives that form their central concerns: 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 viewpoint of mathematisation the interest of these debates is that they succeeded, rather than preceded, the adoption of a perspective system defined by the intersection of the visual pyramid. Thus the history of linear perspective constitutes a genuine case of a posteriori justification, or, put differently, it gives us a case of upside down mathematisation.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 355 | 72 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 105 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 42 | 3 | 0 |
Les débats sur les fondements de la perspective linéaire de Piero della Francesca à Egnatio Danti: un cas de mathématisation à rebours
In: Early Science and MedicineSearch for other papers by Dominique Raynaud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In the Quattrocento and Cinquecento the rise of linear perspective caused many polemics which opposed the supporters of an artificial geometrisation of sight to those who were praising the qualities of the drawing according to nature, or were invoking some arguments on a physiological basis. These debates can be grouped according to the four alternatives that form their central concerns: 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 viewpoint of mathematisation the interest of these debates is that they succeeded, rather than preceded, the adoption of a perspective system defined by the intersection of the visual pyramid. Thus the history of linear perspective constitutes a genuine case of a posteriori justification, or, put differently, it gives us a case of upside down mathematisation.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 355 | 72 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 105 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 42 | 3 | 0 |