The other day on a long straight run of highway I paid attention to the effect of geometric perspective and the vanishing point. Because of the geometry from our vantage point, lines (or highways) that are in fact parallel, appear to converge – coming together at a vanishing point on the horizon.
One useful effect of geometric perspective is the sense of distance it conveys. This effect is strengthened by the related effect of distant objects appearing smaller than they really are.
The effect perspective conveyed to me that day was one of “I’m here, this is the place I am, this is where my consciousness is, and whatever might be at that vanishing point is not here, is not affecting me, is less real than where I am.” My immediate environs, what all I was taking in through peripheral vision, was “what’s happening”, so to speak.
Icons depict backgrounds in Reverse Perspective. One of the resultant effects is that whatever is portrayed on the icon is the “here and now”, the “what’s happening”, and I as the observer am the one at the vanishing point, I’m the “not here”, and I’m not “what’s happening”. Here’s a crude illustration:
Reverse perspective also has, to me at least, a magnetic effect. An icon done in this way seems to be inviting participation – pulling us in. In fact, the effect seems to be one of drawing everything in – my surroundings as well as myself – functioning to reconcile here and there, then and now. Their now becomes my now, and their there becomes my there.
I have to be honest: the first time I read this post I had no idea what you meant. But tonight, my friend and I went to vespers at a local Greek Orthodox church and the priest explained this whole perspective thing. I still don’t think I’m too clear on it and what it means, but it’s interesting. Would you be able to clarify just what this means?
If I can remember correctly, the whole point of what Father was telling us is that the icons are 2 dimensional because they are not supposed to draw us in, but they are to be “unrealistic” so that we remain real, and we are the point of interest. (????) Maybe? I don’t know.
Tyler,
“Normal perspective” renders imagery technically correct with respect to the way we see reality, a way that is clearly not the way reality truly is. For example, the telephone pole down the road is the same height as the one closer to you, but it looks shorter – so your eye is not registering reality as it is. You compensate without having to think about it… which makes us prey to all sorts of fun optical illusions. By the way, I’ve edited the post as I was wrong about this effect having anything to do with interpupilary distance – it’s the same with one eye closed, it’s just geometry.
The Orthodox icon doesn’t concede to the way our eyes see things (which as I’ve said isn’t the way things really are). The icon is like a scene on the other side of a window, with one or more vanishing points either at the pane or on your side of the pane. This makes space expand away from you, creating effects like:
The “figures seem to be accepting the viewer into their world.
When there are landscapes and buildings in the composition they are drawn in reverse perspective so that they draw the viewer into the Picture Plane. The viewer has a sense of continuing forward motion.” Karyl M. Knee
I would recommend Lossky’s “The Meaning of Icons”, which I just noticed Google has scanned. There, he describes inverse perspective, “the point of departure of which lies not in the depth of the image, but in front of the image, as it were in the spectator himself”.
For a stark example, take a look at this site, about 2/3rds down the page:
http://www.orthodoxworld.ru/english/icona/2/index.htm
I would of course defer to the priest at the Greek Orthodox Church you visited, but there are a couple of points to be made concerning participation in the icon. We are taught not to get caught up in imaginations, as though we are present at the depicted event – that would go against one of the points of the icon – to represent reality. That is, spiritual reality. So, we don’t try to imagine being there. We do feel the draw to participate in the Grace that is offered, whether it’s the Baptism, the Ascension, the gaze of Christ directly at us.
I hope that didn’t confuse things too much.
Hmm
George,
Nicely put. And I liked the graphic.
I’d be interested in your comments on this that I wrote on my blog — Tyler too: Notes from underground: The ikon in an age of neo-tribalism
i know this is a bit ‘pratical’ but i am interested in actually ho this is done technically. If it’s a three dimensional object it doesn’t seem like it’s just a matter of placing the vanishing point outside the picture plane. there is also the issue of how many sides to portray including interiors. is there an historical ‘formula’ for this is it just a matter of the artist’s personal choice. given that ‘individualism’ wasn’t a factor in most orthodox/byzantine ‘art’ production, do you have any sense of how this was done???
thanks.
anne.
ps. any other references would be really helpful.