Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Perspective and intent in a Dali painting

Rate this topic


Thales

Recommended Posts

*** Mod's note. Split from another topic. - sN ***

Btw, speaking of Dali, here's a section of a painting of his which is said to have been Rand's favorite painting.

It's distorted. Can anyone here identify what's wrong with the perspective and proportions?

J

Do you mean that the man is shifted to the right of center and pushed somewhat downward?

Edited by softwareNerd
Split topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, speaking of Dali, here's a section of a painting of his which is said to have been Rand's favorite painting.

It's distorted. Can anyone here identify what's wrong with the perspective and proportions?

J

I'll try...

His left foot looks twice as long as his right foot, in fact that left leg looks wrong to me. Maybe his right arm is too short. The head is strange. That's what I see. Sorry I don't have the vocabulary to clarify.

MissLemon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't immediately jump out at me, but the perspective up/down is not right.

The cross looks wider higher up--look at the crossbar--a reversal of the effect you'd get from perspective, where it would shrink the further it is from your eyeball.

Exactly.

The distortion can be easier for some people to see when the painting is rotated 60 degrees, like this, which can give it the impression that you're looking down on it from above.

The distortion comes from the fact that Dali used 2-point perspective in a painting which needs 3 points. The vertical lines should not be parallel to each other, but should converge at a vanishing point, just as the lines which represent the other two axes do.

J

Was this really one of Rand's favorites?

I haven't read the book myself, but I've heard that Jeff Britting's Ayn Rand states that it was her favorite painting.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

The distortion can be easier for some people to see when the painting is rotated 60 degrees, like this, which can give it the impression that you're looking down on it from above.

The distortion comes from the fact that Dali used 2-point perspective in a painting which needs 3 points. The vertical lines should not be parallel to each other, but should converge at a vanishing point, just as the lines which represent the other two axes do.

"Needs" a different perspective is a bit strong, as is the word "incorrect". You're suggesting that Dali made a mistake. If it had proper perspective, Jesus would be a lot smaller than Mary as well:

dali1.jpg

The painting is about ascension to Heaven. The higher something is, the greater it appears, because Dali wasn't recreating reality, he was recreating his own (religious) view of it. At least that's what I assume the reason is for the distortions. (and the cubes, which seem to want to suggest mysterious extra dimensions.)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Needs" a different perspective is a bit strong, as is the word "incorrect". You're suggesting that Dali made a mistake. If it had proper perspective, Jesus would be a lot smaller than Mary as well:

...

The painting is about ascension to Heaven. The higher something is, the greater it appears, because Dali wasn't recreating reality, he was recreating his own (religious) view of it. At least that's what I assume the reason is for the distortions. (and the cubes, which seem to want to suggest mysterious extra dimensions.)

I'm not sure that Jonathan was saying Dali made a mistake (the guy was a brilliant painter). He's just calling attention to the distortion, which is likely intentional on Dali's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The painting is about ascension to Heaven. The higher something is, the greater it appears, because Dali wasn't recreating reality, he was recreating his own (religious) view of it. At least that's what I assume the reason is for the distortions. (and the cubes, which seem to want to suggest mysterious extra dimensions.)

So, your theory is that Dali was a master of 3-point perspective but he avoided using it, and that he distorted the vertical axis on purpose?

I suppose it's possible that you're right. But then I have to wonder what reasons you think he might have had for his many other deviations from proper perspective, including in the horizontal axes of his Corpus Hypercubus, as well as in his other paintings. I mean, I always assumed that his distortions were errors since they seem to have a certain consistency to them, and they're the same errors that most people make when they don't quite understand the art of perspective -- they suggest that he had a basic understanding of 2-point perspective but never learned how to properly apply some its features.

Jake, maybe you could identify some of the distortions that I'm talking about and explain why they're not errors?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your theory is that Dali was a master of 3-point perspective but he avoided using it, and that he distorted the vertical axis on purpose?

I'm sorry, but as far as this small point, of that third vanishing point in a 3 point perspective being planted firmly in the ground and not in the sky as it's supposed to be, obviously on purpose, it would be ridiculous to argue further. It just is, Dali wasn't retarded.

Moving on to a completely unrelated subject, this idiot should really change his boots, he keeps missing the Damn goal (1:30 into the vid):

Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold

As for the rest, I don't see how you can use Dali to prove any point you may wish to prove related to the subject of the thread. Sorry for not being civil again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but as far as this small point, of that third vanishing point in a 3 point perspective being planted firmly in the ground and not in the sky as it's supposed to be, obviously on purpose, it would be ridiculous to argue further. It just is, Dali wasn't retarded.

Um, the alleged third vanishing point that you're claiming is "planted in the ground" actually doesn't exist. As I said earlier, Dali's error was to use 2-point perspective in a painting which needs 3 points. The vertical lines are parallel to each other. They do not converge at a vanishing point, which is a very common method used by artists who don't fully understand perspective, even though it can lead to distortion -- they're usually not aware of the distortion.

I agree with you that Dali wasn't retarded. I would never claim that someone was retarded just because he was apparently limited to a basic understanding of 2-point perspective (and made common errors while using the 2-point system). Many great artists before and after him have had the same limits of knowledge, and they made the same kinds of errors.

Moving on to a completely unrelated subject, this idiot should really change his boots, he keeps missing the Damn goal (1:30 into the vid):

Ronaldinho: Touch of Gold

As for the rest, I don't see how you can use Dali to prove any point you may wish to prove related to the subject of the thread. Sorry for not being civil again.

One of my points has been that there are many technical criteria used for judging visual art, and that people who have little or no knowledge of those critieria will be rather limited in which criteria they use to judge a work of art, and they often won't understand what others are talking about when they judge a painting by the criteria that exceed the knowledge of the novices. People often deny the importance of the criteria that they don't understand. They'll exclaim that the technical elements that they understand in a painting look great, so it's a great painting.

And you, Jake, have been proving my point. Even with the advantages of the tutorial that I posted, you don't seem to have much interest in learning anything about a technical matter that you don't understand, and, in fact, you seem to be eager to dismiss the importance of any technical criteria that you don't understand.

Can I ask why this subject and my informed views on it are so upsetting to you? Why do you have what seems to be such a strong emotional investment in defending positions on a subject about which you have little or no technical knowledge, and a subject about which you seem to have little interest in learning?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i'm able to tell the vertical lines do actually converge, it's just that the vanishing point is far below the ground.

What means have you used to measure whether or not the lines are vertical and parallel?

If you have a copy of PhotoShop, open the image, and then create a large vertical selection using the rectangular marquee tool. Drag the selection and place it on the verticals, one line at a time. Doing so will confirm that the lines are parallel. The lines don't converge.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i'm able to tell the vertical lines do actually converge, it's just that the vanishing point is far below the ground.

I have a feeling you're not looking at it on a flat screen either. I guess they are parallel, in reality, after all.

P.S. Still think it wasn't an error, and that making the lines tend to converge above would've ruined the painting.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What means have you used to measure whether or not the lines are vertical and parallel?

If you have a copy of PhotoShop, open the image, and then create a large vertical selection using the rectangular marquee tool. Drag the selection and place it on the verticals, one line at a time. Doing so will confirm that the lines are parallel. The lines don't converge.

J

I used the line tool, but on closer inspection it looks like you're right. My bad.

I have a feeling you're not looking at it on a flat screen either. I guess they are parallel, in reality, after all.

P.S. Still think it wasn't an error, and that making the lines tend to converge above would've ruined the painting.

Nope, I have an LCD monitor. My mistake was from the fact that the bottom cube is just slightly narrower than the upper and to draw the long lines I had the image too zoomed out.

I think Dali might have been bending the rules to create the image that he wanted, and I agree that a vanishing point at the top would have ruined the painting. But, I can't really judge his knowledge on perspective as I know too little about his work(and i'm certainly not an expert on perspective either).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling you're not looking at it on a flat screen either. I guess they are parallel, in reality, after all.

P.S. Still think it wasn't an error, and that making the lines tend to converge above would've ruined the painting.

I have a tendency to agree with you. I think it was deliberate.

Here is another painting by Dali which shows perspective up/down:

dali-christ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't seem to have a use for the 3-point perspective, but on something as simple as that cross, or that hypercube in the other one, it would've been a piece of cake for someone that good.

But, again, I don't think anyone, no matter how brilliant and experienced with it, could've stayed true to 3-point perspective and still achieved the same structure, in the "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't seem to have a use for the 3-point perspective, but on something as simple as that cross, or that hypercube in the other one, it would've been a piece of cake for someone that good.

The fact that Dali was a great painter doesn't mean that he was a great draftsman. I doubt that 3-point perspective would have been a "piece of cake" for him, since he hadn't even mastered 2-point perspective (as I mentioned in an earlier post, there are errors in his horizontal planes as well).

But, again, I don't think anyone, no matter how brilliant and experienced with it, could've stayed true to 3-point perspective and still achieved the same structure, in the "Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)".

Well, as I've been saying, your opinion isn't informed by any real technical knowledge. I doubt that people who know practically nothing about the art of perspective would have noticed the difference if Dali had accurately made the vertical lines run to a distant zenith point, let alone that they would have experienced the painting as "ruined."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Dali was a great painter doesn't mean that he was a great draftsman.

Unless by draftsman you mean someone looking for new talent for the NFL, that's exactly what he was. But of course, you're implying that you're better than he was, so prove it.

Well, as I've been saying, your opinion isn't informed by any real technical knowledge. I doubt that people who know practically nothing about the art of perspective would have noticed the difference if Dali had accurately made the vertical lines run to a distant zenith point, let alone that they would have experienced the painting as "ruined."

There are less than a dozen straight lines that could've easily been altered to run to a distant vanish point. What you are describing is not a difficult task. Understanding why he didn't just do it is much more difficult, apparently.

You have presented no qualifications to judge Salvador Dali's work, so I will hold you to your own standards and not acknowledge your opinion on him again, until you come up with something to match his work.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless by draftsman you mean someone looking for new talent for the NFL, that's exactly what he was. But of course, you're implying that you're better than he was, so prove it.

How would I go about proving it to you? You have no technical knowledge of what I'm talking about. You have no understanding of what would constitute proof. I'd first have to teach you the criteria by which to judge whether or not I understand perspective better than Dali did, and that would probably take a few months, or longer if you've had no art training and are resistant to learning.

I'll tell you what, go and learn the art of perspective on your own, and when you think you've mastered it -- when you think that you can accurately project from orthographic views, say, a house, a curved swimming pool and a specific model of car parked in the driveway -- come back to this thread and I'll explain to you Dali's errors if you haven't discovered them for yourself by then.

There are less than a dozen straight lines that could've easily been altered to run to a distant vanish point. What you are describing is not a difficult task. Understanding why he didn't just do it is much more difficult, apparently.

I think the part of my point that you're missing is that I'm discussing the correct and accurate use of perspective. What I'm describing is not as easy as you're imagining it to be in your state of lack of knowledge and experiece. Sure, anyone with a grade school level understanding of perspective can successfully draw lines to a randomly positioned vanishing point. The idea, though, is not to randomly position vanishing points, but to understand where, and why, they should be placed if the image is going to correspond to reality.

You have presented no qualifications to judge Salvador Dali's work, so I will hold you to your own standards and not acknowledge your opinion on him again, until you come up with something to match his work.

You don't understand the criteria which would be used to judge whether or not something matches or exceeds Dali's understanding and use of perspective. You're not qualified to judge whether or not I'm qualified to judge it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the part of my point that you're missing is that I'm discussing the correct and accurate use of perspective.

There is no such thing as a *correct* and *accurate* use of perspective in art. The purpose of art isn't to reproduce exactly what you see like some sort of automaton. Dali was a SURREALIST. ALL of his paintings were INTENTIONALLY distorted, many of them incredibly so.

While it is extremely valuable for an artist to learn precisely how perspective works (I just took a class to do this very thing) and practice it in great detail, it may or may not be valuable for them to make use if it in a given work. One of my favorite modern artists, Michael Whelan, intentionally uses false perspective in some of his works to, in his own words, "create a sense of looming immensity". He tried it with the "correct" perspective and didn't like it as much--it lost a lot of the visual impact. So he fixed it.

You pedantic twits are getting on my nerves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite modern artists, Michael Whelan, intentionally uses false perspective in some of his works to, in his own words, "create a sense of looming immensity". He tried it with the "correct" perspective and didn't like it as much--it lost a lot of the visual impact. So he fixed it.

I once saw a painting very similar this one, I can't remember the artist, but it was a large piece. I remember standing in front of it and I almost felt like I was falling INTO it. It was a pretty interesting sensation. Talk about "looming immensity" and no, I wasn't drinking beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a *correct* and *accurate* use of perspective in art. The purpose of art isn't to reproduce exactly what you see like some sort of automaton.

I didn't claim that the purpose of art was to reproduce exactly what one sees, and I'm well aware of the fact that artists often intentionally distort their images.

Dali was a SURREALIST. ALL of his paintings were INTENTIONALLY distorted, many of them incredibly so.

That's not true. All of Dali's paintings were not intentionally distorted. Some of his paintings were "normal" realistic scenes, and he made some of the same perspective errors in such non-surrealistic paintings that he made in his surrealistic paintings.

Which is more likely, that Dali was a fairly skilled draftsman who repeatedly made some of the same errors that a lot of other artists commonly make, or that he was a master draftsman who intentionally chose to make his art look like it contained the mistakes that a lot of other artists commonly make, including in his non-surrealistic paintings?

While it is extremely valuable for an artist to learn precisely how perspective works (I just took a class to do this very thing) and practice it in great detail, it may or may not be valuable for them to make use if it in a given work. One of my favorite modern artists, Michael Whelan, intentionally uses false perspective in some of his works to, in his own words, "create a sense of looming immensity". He tried it with the "correct" perspective and didn't like it as much--it lost a lot of the visual impact. So he fixed it.

Your argument would seem to imply that you believe that in the cases where we can't interview the artist, or in some other way discover with certainty his intentions, we can't objectively judge any of the technical merits of his art, because any aspects of his art that we might deem to be mistakes or other evidence of poor skills could actually have been intentionally chosen, and therefore might be evidence of his mastery or his ineptitude, with no way for us to decide or objectively demonstrate which is the truth.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...