{"id":281,"date":"2019-10-23T20:58:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-23T20:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dd.salgoodsam.com\/?p=281"},"modified":"2023-09-10T16:28:12","modified_gmt":"2023-09-10T20:28:12","slug":"perspective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/salgoodsam.com\/dd\/perspective\/","title":{"rendered":"Linear Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In my post IMPOSING THE GRID<\/a>, I mentioned the Renaissance invention of Drawing Engines, grids of wire or string used by artists to observe and analyze their subject in order to render them more accurately. This came into use around the same time as modern Linear Perspective<\/a>, as pioneered by Brunelleschi<\/a>. It’s often mistakenly talked about as an “Innovation” of the Renaissance<\/a>. But in fact it was a rediscovery<\/a>, based on insights derived from<\/a> an Arabic text<\/a> by Alhazen<\/a> on optics, and the concept of linear perspective was clearly used by the Ancient Romans<\/a>, along with orthogonal and symbolic systems<\/a> similar to Byzantine and Egyptian art.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

At the time western artists started to adopt new ideas about how optics worked, and looking through their Drawing Engines<\/a> [or Albertian Veils<\/em>] suggested mathematical ways one could measure out what they thought was perfect optical perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What came out of this was a new system, which gave results truly amazing to the eyes of its time. It’s a technique that still impresses today.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Byzantine<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"A<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

As I have come to understand it Byzantine art<\/a> that came before had ideas about perspective too: Rather than being optical it was about symbolic significance. Centered not on a vanishing point in the picture plane but instead on the viewer. Important people were larger than unimportant people. Buildings were often smaller than royalty. And god was always a giant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People and structures were angled towards where the artist expected an audience to stand. Attempting to rise towards them out of the picture plane rather than recede back into the space it framed, emulating relief sculpture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the introduction of linear perspective<\/a> artists began to switch from images dominated by symbolic representations, to those that looked more and more like what people saw around them, enhanced and idealized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They moved deeper into imagined spaces inside the picture plane, making it a window into a world. Rather than attempting to build one out away from the picture plane into our own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was as though someone had bought them a new visual thesaurus. Invented a new dialect of art. One that we would strive to master until the invention of the Camera. An early painting that employed the technique was this rendering of an ideal city square by Piero della Francesca<\/a> in 1470.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Piero<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"Albrecht<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\"compressed<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The reinvention of single point perspective, for the next couple of hundred years we would seek to build on the utility of mathematically precise linear perspective, or as I often call it optical perspective. It can give impressive results. I went to great lengths myself when I was first starting out to use it. I’d draw full grids for my shots, trying to get everything just right. Learning to understand the basic principles is more than worthwhile. But i also often found the results disappointing.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"5<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

A common problem is compressing your vanishing points. In the case of an object with a right angle corner like a cube. If you can see the vanishing point for one side, in order to see any other in the frame you have to distort the angels, like a wide-angle camera lenses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And to really correctly map the way we see the world, you often can’t just use Single, or Two, or even Three point perspective. It takes Five<\/strong><\/a>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What you say is 5 point perspective? Or point mean for that matter?! Ok, Getting ahead of the game. Here’s a basic explanation of how linear perspective works.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Vanishing<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

First look out over an open space. The Horizon<\/strong> plays a central role in linear perspective. Three of the baseline points in Five Point Perspective live on it, like points on a compass. “Point” in this case refers to the phenomenon that if we draw two parallel lines for as far as we can see,  while they may never actually meet, standing at one end of them a human looking to the other end will perceive them as coming together at a point on the horizon, before vanishing. The parallel leading edges of anything we look at along it’s length, will appear to do this. Even if it’s not towards the horizon. But anything sitting on the ground, typically will do this in the direction of the horizon, away from us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We call that, a Vanishing Point<\/strong>. The number of Vanishing Points the system is using is where we get Single<\/strong>, Two Point<\/strong>, Three, or Four<\/strong>, or Five.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Three or more, we add the vanishing points directly over, and under us. You seldom see Six Point, that’s including the one behind us outside of our visible field of view. But truthfully you don’t have to always get nearly that complicated. You can do a lot with humble Single Point<\/strong> perspective. Just watch this clip of Kubrick single point shots<\/a>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to create a convincing and consistent illusion of depth, just remember that all your objects need to respect and conform to logical vanishing points. Or, at least appear to?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

THE FALLACY OF PERFECTION:<\/strong> Often when we watch demonstrations of how to draw perspective it’s done with rulers. This is logical, it was invented as a mathematical and exacting tool. And it’s good practice to try doing it “properly” at first this way just to get the experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a great deal of art though a freehand and loose application of perspective can give much better results esthetically. A problem rulers introduce is their rigidity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One ruled line on a page can make every other line look “wrong<\/strong>” unless it adheres to it.<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This compels the artist to over render, leading to stiffer lines and art. So while I do recommend a full and in-depth study of perspective, when you are applying it to a drawing, I encourage you to practice rendering it freehand<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This clip on how one-point linear perspective<\/strong> works by the Khan Academy<\/a> does a good job of explaining the core components. You’ll also find a fantastic free guide here<\/a>, by Urban Sketcher<\/a> Paul Heaston<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n