Panofsky, Erwin Perspective as Symbolic Form

In Perspective as Symbolic Form, Panofsky traces the transformation of perspective in art from
antiquity to modernity. As Panofsky explains, Renaissance perspective systemized space on the
canvas. The mathematization or rationalization of space on the canvas, which utilized a central
vanishin point on the canvas oriinatin from a sinular eye, is what ives rise to perspective
durin the Renaissance, accordin to Panofsky. !efore the Renaissance, artists were not
conizant of perspective" durin the Renaissance, however, perspective #ecame a conscientious
means to overcome the distortions of medieval art. As such, perspective #ecame dependent not
only on rules and laws #ut on $point of view.% &ore so, perspective as sym#olic form #ecame a
means of orderin a visual phenomenon. Panofsky also arues that the differin versions of
perspective $are expressive of the cultures that invented them% '(lkins )*+. ,or instance, where
as the ancient -reek perspective was an expression of a su#.ective world, the Renaissance
perspective was a record of an o#.ective world '(lkins /)+. Thus, perspective, accordin to
Panofsky, is culturally relative.

Elkins, James. The Poetics of Perspective

In The Poetics of Perspective, (lkins distinuishes #etween two distinct conceptions of
perspective0 perspective as method and perspective as metaphor. (lkins explains that
perspective as method, technique, stratey for makin pictures, has one larely unexamined and
from the artists point of view, has #ecome virtually invisi#le. 1n the other hand, much modern
scholarly work, includin Panofsky2s, entails metaphorical conceptions of perspective, which
conceive of perspective as $a sin sinifyin a mental state, a culture, or an expressive
lanuae% and representin a worldview ')3+. The modern conception of perspective is #ased on
two tropes0 point of view and space. Also, $the idea of perspective 4as metaphor5 is insepera#le
from active thouht so that to conceive one is to think throuh the other% '67+.

(lkins traces the varyin approaches of deployin metaphorical perspective and concludes that
$these approaches impose a conceptual unity on a su#.ect that has traditionally #een resistant to
that very possi#ility% '68+. In reality, (lkins claims that a study of the various and historical
accounts of perspective demonstrates a dissonant, unclear, and dis.ointed conception and
deployment of perspective while simultaneously there has existed a desire for clarity and
coherence '97+. (lkins is less interested in these metaphorical accounts, however, than he is the
$meaninless% once. :e thus turns to trace the accounts of perspective as method throuh
historical treaties on perspectives as well as art, mainly paintins. :is work illustrates that
perspective as a discipline has never #een unified" that a historical and conceptual unity of
perspective durin the Renaissance did not exist nor did an overarchin interest in orderly
content or uniformity or o#eyance of rules" and that, in fact, durin the Renaissance, perspective
was conceived more as $a kind of experimentation in the ruins of mathematics% '));+. There is,
in other words $no coherent history, no connected tradition, #eneath the word% perspective
'/)9+. 1ur desire to unify $Renaissance perspective% is simply an indication of $our insistence
on the monolithic unity of perspective0 it is more than an interpretative stratey or a historical
#ias0 it is part of how we perceive modernism itself% ')87+.

This actuality, (lkins claims, illustrates somethin very important a#out historioraphy that is
relevant, I think, to our own field0

<$many writers have not thouht it relevant to research the history of their questions%
</)*
<$modern writin on perspective is rehearsin a desire that cannot #e accommodated%
</)* I= >?@T?RA@ R:(T1RI>= R(:(AR=IA- A B(=IR( T:AT >AAA1T !(
A>>1&1BAT(BC
<our unwillinness to explore what really lies #eneath concepts we take for ranted
reflects our need not to know and are uided #y the #oundaries of reflexivity< /); D:AT
>1A>(PT= IA 1?R ,I(@B B1 D( TAE( ,1R -RAAT(BC T:AT R(,@(>T 1?R A((B
A1T T1 EA1DC T:AT A((B T1 !( B(> 1A=TR?>T(BC
<$we need to #ein to address the desire itself instead of remainin within our
accustomed enres and keepin to their conventional modes of allusion and reference% F /);.
R:(T1RI> A=GGT:I= T(HT =:1?@B !( DRITT(A DIT: T:I= -1A@ IA &IAB.

(lkins concludes that questions and answers a#out perspective have #ecome static and thus
offers suestions for future scholarship that are also relevant to our own field0

<!ein aware of our need to define orin miht modify our desire to keep explorin the
same pro#lems '/;6+.

<Aew constellations of disciplines would have unpredicta#le effects on our narratives and
the meanins we assin to pictures '/;9+. :(R( I= D:I A &?@TIBI=>IP@IAARI
APPR1A>: T1 R:(T1RI>A@ =T?BI(= I= =1 E(I.

<Betach perspective from customary meanins and experiment with methodoloy '/;*+
D:AT I, D( B(TA>:(B R:(T1RI> ,R1& >?=T1&ARI &(AAIA-=C :1D B1 1?R
D(=T(RA B(,IAITI1A= 1, R:(T1RI> -?IB(= D:AT D( IB(ATI,I T1 !(
R:(T1RI> IA A1A<D(=T(RA =(TTIA-= AAB D:AT EIAB= 1, &(T:1B1@1-I(=
D1?@B !( ?=(,?@ ,1R

<Address $perspective% in terms of history of disciplines '/;*+

<overall, study the various ways of talkin a#out perspective, its disciplinary relations,
and its force in our thinkin a#out modernism and history '/;8+.

<ask ourselves0 Dhat meanins do we create, and which do we exclude, #y approachin
perspective only to a certain distance and from certain directionsC '/;J+.

(lkins final points0 $Perspective directs our eyes and orders our thouhtsGperspective seems to
control no ony what I seeKit sets the conditions of visi#ilityK#ut how I see and how I descri#e
the way I seeG.writin a#out perspective is like strulin in a spider we#G%'/3/+. De need to
#ein to realize how deeply we are cauhtG

Key Quotes:

The supposedly o#.ective , unified world posited #y science, accordin to Aietszche, is only a
skin of collective areement, somethin made #y an areate of like<minded points of
viewG.perspective is a manifestation of the will to power and that it is Lnothin more than a
complex form of specificity.2 It is complex #ecause the sinle, Lspecific2 aents #and toether in
their desire to remake the world in their own imaesG% '/)+.

1nce the concept of perspectival metaphor underwent the su#tle and mysterious chane that
allowed it to #e experienced as a metaphor, it spread unchecked into much of our lanuae and
thouht, and in some ways perspectival metaphors are so unimaina#ly unmanaea#le that they
can no loner form a topic of philosophic inquiry at all </J.

1ptin for clarity in a su#.ect evidently constituted #y chaos is a way of enain a certain
violence of interpretation that is not connected to the sometimes raed #oundaries #etween
perspective2s disciplines< 68.

A kind of perspective in seein, Aietzsche thouht, was mistakenly made $the cause of seein,%
resultin in $ the invention of the Lsu#.ect,2 the LI2% F 6J.

Perspective is the site of the leislation of seein, #ut it has nevr operated under a sinle verdict
or #indin rule F 87.

1ur eneration reads more meanin into positions and $states% of the viewer, azes, mirrors,
reflected and refracted seein, and their permutations than past enerations seem to have F ))J

1ur repetitious writin could #e reinterpreted as the classic symptom of unslaked desire, and our
unwillinness to write differently could #e reimaind as the necessary repression of whatever
miht run contrary to the desire F /;3