You are on page 1of 7

Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

The peacock's tail

Essays on Mathematics and Culture

Reverse perspective in Christian iconography

Posted: April 27, 2011 | Author: Theodor | Filed under: Visual Arts | Tags: Andrei Rublev, Art,
Byzantium, Christian iconography, Cubism, Euclid, Filippo Brunelleschi, Geometry, George Braque,
Haghia Sophia, Hockney-Falco thesis, Leon Ba ista Alberti, Linear Perspective, Mathematics, Pablo
Picasso, Paradox, Pavel Florensky, Renaissance, Reverse Linear Perspective, Robert Delaunay,
Theology, Visual Arts |1 Comment
A visual paradox

Euclid in his work “Optics” (around 300 B.C.), the first scientific work to relate the theory of vision to
Mathematics, noted that when observing a sphere from a fixed position it is possible to view more than
half of its surface. As each eye views the sphere from a different viewpoint, the visual perception is
created by the images of two spherical caps, the combined result of which may, under certain
conditions, add up to more than a hemisphere’s surface. Though seemingly paradoxical, a similar
claim can be made for other sufficiently small shapes such as a cubic die of which one may view four
sides at the same time. Indeed, holding a die in close distance from the eyes and orienting it in a way
that e.g. the 6 is on top and the 5 faces the observer, one sees at the same time a “4, 5, 6” arrangement
with the left eye and a “3, 5, 6” arrangement with the right eye. The combined visual perception from
the two viewpoints, one for each eye, presents the observer with a simultaneous view of four faces of
the cubic die, a paradoxical picture that could not be produced by conventional photography.

The combined visual perception of a die from two distinct viewpoints (right) yields an image
incompatible to linear perspective

Linear perspective and the unique viewpoint principle

Both painting and photography are a empts of representing the world, perceived as a three
dimensional Euclidean space, onto a two dimensional surface by accepting several fundamental
principles. The geometric rules of linear perspective, first formulated methodically in the 15th century
by the Renaissance polymath Leon Ba ista Alberti, were based on the unique viewpoint principle i.e.
the convention of creating 2D images by selecting an arbitrary, unique point in 3D space and refer
solely to the light rays reflected from the 3D subject towards this specific viewpoint. The 2D image is
formed by the intersections of these converging light rays with a theoretical picture plane, representing
the painting surface. A couple of decades before Alberti, the Renaissance architect and engineer Filippo

1 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

Brunelleschi demonstrated the principle by drawing on a mirror the outlines of Florentine buildings.
Since Renaissance and even until 19th century, artists have developed more sophisticated mechanical
analogues, such as camera lucida type devices, to facilitate the exact transfer of 2D images from specific
points of view. The concept is at the core of western art and of such significance that there have even
been controversial claims (the so called Hockney – Falco thesis, 2001) of the sharp advances depiction
accuracy after the 15thcentury being more the result of the parallel advances in optical technology
(based upon the unique viewpoint principle) rather than the development of freehand technique and
technical skill.

Conventional and reverse linear perspective. A cube rendered by one point reverse perspective (lower
left) displays four of its faces towards the viewer.

According to the linear perspective theory, which is a natural result of the unique viewpoint principle,
any set of parallel lines intersecting the picture plane should be rendered as a set of lines converging to
a theoretical vanishing point, located at infinity, away from the observer. A consequence is that at most
three faces of any parallelepiped can be simultaneously visible from any viewpoint, leaving Euclid’s
observation outside of the conventional linear perspective framework. Therefore, in the context of the
geometric theory upon which western art is based, an image of a cube showing four faces at the
observer is simply impossible and paradoxical.

The odd perspective of Christian icons

Collecting light rays from a single, arbitrary viewpoint is a quite realistic convention, as this is the way
a single human eye or a photographic lens works, yet it is still only a convention. It seems natural
however, when exercising a form of art closely related to the divine and the metaphysical, to depart
from realistic depictions and to seek refuge in abstraction. The art of Christian iconography evolved
slowly after the third century A.D., employing standardized compositions, a symbolic alphabet of
poses, gestures, colors and even purely abstract, geometric forms, such as the triangular representation
of Holy Trinity. Holy beings, such as Jesus Christ, Mary or the Saints, are represented as non realistic,
almost non material human, haloed figures with sharp outlines, sometimes rendered staring out of the
icon directly upon the viewer, and clad in brightly colored, elaborately rendered garments displaying a
geometric structure of folds. Shadowing appears as a natural part of each figure, irrelevant to localized,
external sources of light. Physical proportions and relative sizes are often inaccurately rendered:
infants are shown as downscaled copies of adults and even the reduction of sizes as distance is
increased, an elementary hint of perspective used in a non methodical manner long before Alberti’s

2 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

geometric formulation, is loosely employed with obvious inconsistencies. Before and after Renaissance,
considerations about possible geometric rules of perspective seemed not imperative for Christian
iconography: as icons were meant for worshipping purposes, their spiritual character was far more
important than pe y technicalities about perspective and the painter of icons was (and still is) more a
communicator with God than a creator of convincing illusions.

Andrei Rublev, “Annunciation” (1405)

Quite surprisingly, throughout the history of Christian icon painting, several recurrent features
indicate a tendency of reversing the rules of linear perspective rather than ignoring them. This
unconventional rendering technique directly questions the unique viewpoint principle and is
manifested by supposedly parallel lines converging towards the viewer, instead of converging towards
a vanishing point at infinity away from the viewer. As a consequence, in some striking examples,
reminiscent of Euclid’s unconventional observation on visual perception, parallelepipeds formed by
architectural structures, thrones, pedestals, tables or stools, which are common elements in the
standardized scenery of religious themes, turn at the same time towards the viewer more faces than
expected in the conventional perspective framework. Though the basic structure of Christian icons is
not linear, as it is concentrated on spiritual beings rendered as stylized human figures, a number of
details standard in icons betray reverse perspective and not much research is required to discover such
details in scores of examples.

A rather illustrative example is provided by “Annunciation” (1405), a masterpiece of the great Russian
painter of Christian Orthodox icons and frescoes Andrei Rublev (ca 1360 – 1429). In the complex
architectural structure of the background, a pa ern of supposedly parallel lines converging towards
the viewer is recurrent while in a detail of the upper left part of the picture, a building turns towards
the viewer more faces than it ought to according to conventional linear perspective. The pedestal and
the throne, upon which Virgin Mary accepts from Archangel Gabriel the announcement of miraculous
conception, similarly display reversed perspective. In “Ascension” (1408), also Rublev’s work, traces of
a “pavimento” like structure clearly indicate a convergence of parallel lines towards the viewer and
outside of the picture. The “Deesis” mosaic (ca 1261), a fine work of art in Haghia Sophia (early 6th

3 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

century A.D.) displays Christ Pantokrator holding a Bible shaped as a parallelepiped with obvious
reversed perspective. In the tympanum of the southwestern entrance of the magnificent church, Virgin
Mary is shown amidst Emperor Constantine and Justinian I, standing on a throne of which the
structure and pedestal bear apparent reverse perspective structure.

Images such as these have obviously been created without accepting the unique viewpoint convention
and, as far as the problem of perspective is concerned, probably without any systematic quantitative or
structural convention. The reverse perspective elements found in countless icons seem not to be subject
or result of a consistent geometric theory, yet their persistent appearance in Byzantine art and its
offshoots in Eastern Christianity world is certainly perplexing. One may easily a ribute it to naivety, a
misunderstood or unsuccessful version of linear perspective, a result of failure to recognize the unique
viewpoint principle that would inevitably point to the correct theory of linear perspective. The bad
perspective could have dispersed and become mainstream due to some stubborn sense of religious
tradition.

Reverse perspective in Cubism

It was not until early 20thcentury that artistic movements began to consistently question the unique
viewpoint doctrine of western art. The cubist movement in particular, initiated by Pablo Picasso with
“Demoiselles D’ Avignon” (1907), brought forward the possibility of the simultaneous rendering of the
subject from a number of different viewpoints of 3D space or the even more advanced notion of
viewing the subject from a unique point in 4D space, a unimaginable position that permits
simultaneous views upon 3D objects from multiple viewpoints. Remarkably, this idea sometimes
produces images with details not very different from the awkward, reverse perspective of Christian
icons. In Picasso’s “Reservoir at Horta” (1909), the landscape of the Catalonian town Horta de Ebro
dissolves in a pile of geometric forms displaying awkward perspective. In several details, supposedly
parallel lines converge reversely, towards the viewer, while parallelepiped – like structures permit the
viewing of more faces than conventional linear perspective rules would normally allow. Similar
features appear in Georges Braque’s “Castle at La Roche – Guyon” (1909) as well as in Robert
Delaunay’s “The Tower Behind Curtains” (1910) where the pyramid – shaped, distorted Eiffel tower
displays extreme reverse perspective.

Pablo Picasso, “Reservoir at Horta – Horta d Ebro”, 1909 (detail). The Cubist technique, compatible to
multiple viewpoints, results to obvious reverse perspective.

One could argue that though Cubism developed questioning the unique viewpoint principle, its
advocates were absolutely aware of conventional linear perspective and deliberately chose to put it
aside while the solid, geometric framework of linear perspective was unavailable to Christian
iconographers and therefore the deliberate nature of any effect originating from their awkward, reverse
perspective becomes dubious. One could also argue in response that it may be possible for a
meaningful, sophisticated, elaborate form of art, to have developed around a different concept of

4 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

perspective without necessarily having first accepted the convention that western art became
accustomed of recognizing as the only one that accurately represents the world perceived by human. It
might therefore be also meaningful to examine alternative explanations for the recurrent reverse
perspective in Christian icons, other than the naivety interpretation. According to the Russian
mathematician and polymath Father Pavel Florensky (1882 – 1937), an extraordinary personality that
worked on anything from Theology and Art to Physics and Mathematics, the painter possesses two
viewpoints (his eyes) and is equipped with a mental mechanism to create a synthesis of the two
different images, an idea strongly reminiscent of Euclid’s paradox. Therefore, he argues, human visual
perception should not be confused with the photographic, unique viewpoint principle. Florensky, who
served from 1921 to 1924 as the head of the Department of Analysis of Spatial Representation at
VKhUTEMAS (the Moscow Higher Art and Technical Studios), regarded the linear perspective
system, and any system of perspective, as just one of the possible conventions. “Is it true that perspective
as it is claimed by its supporters”, he asks in his 1919 article “Obratnaya Perspektiva” (Reverse
Perspective), “expresses the true nature of things and therefore should be everywhere and always understood as
the absolute condition of artistic truth? Or is it only a scheme, only one among many schemes of representation,
corresponding not to the universal world view but only one possible understanding of the world, connected to a
particular sensibility and cognizance?”

A possible interpretation of reverse perspective

A number of possibilities have been brought forward to explain the use of reverse perspective in
Christian iconography, including the subjective assessment that the technique increases the sense of
awe by creating the illusion of expanding images in the distance. Moreover, as the theoretical vanishing
points are located at or near the viewer, the impression of being looked upon or encircled by God is
emi ed, alluding thus to God’s omnipresence.

One point perspective of parallelograms above and below the plane of sight. The former display
downwards convergence towards the vanishing point.

Assuming that Christian iconographers were not altogether ignorant of the fact that parallel lines
should be rendered converging towards the horizon, another possible interpretation arises. To proceed
we do not need to accept that they were necessarily aware of the unique viewpoint principle. In
conventional linear perspective the picture plane is separated in two regions by the horizon line, a line
produced by the intersection of the picture plane with the plane of sight, which is a perpendicular
plane passing through the viewpoint. Normally, the region above the horizon line represents the sky
(or, from a theological point of view, the realm of Heaven as the dwelling place of God) while the
region below represents the ground (the Earth). For simplicity I will refer to one point perspective
parallelograms, parallel to the ground. The ones located below the plane of sight are rendered below
the horizon and display upwards convergence towards the vanishing point. Similarly, the ones located
above the plane of sight are rendered above the horizon and display downwards convergence towards
the vanishing point. As a ma er of fact, one may have discovered the upwards or downwards
convergence without having necessarily realized the unique viewpoint principle and its consequences.
The paradox in Christian icons, which is conceived as reverse perspective, arises from the displaying of
downwards convergence for parallelograms that are obviously below the plane of sight. This could be
interpreted as an intentional a empt to depict objects involved in religious scenes according to the

5 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

Geometry of the Heavens, the realm above the horizon. Inevitably, images produced by this
unconventional Geometry bear strong resemblance to images created by accepting multiple
viewpoints. Rather than a ributing it to naivety or simply bad perspective, this explanation of reverse
perspective places the technique among the meaningful, elaborate vocabulary developed and
employed throughout the centuries by Christian iconographers.

REPORT THIS AD

REPORT THIS AD

One Comment on “Reverse perspective in Christian iconography”

1. Art Review: Art Institute Chicago | Dean Johnson Art Studio says:
November 27, 2015 at 6:55 pm
[…] example, Icon writers often reverse the rules of perspective, rendering far-away parts of a three-
dimensional landscape larger than the close-up areas. The […]

Reply

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Mid Mo Design.

6 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM
Reverse perspective in Christian iconography | The peacock's tail https://pavlopoulos.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/reverse-perspective-in-...

REPORT THIS AD

7 of 7 22-Apr-19, 9:13 PM

You might also like