Ancient Egyptian camera obscura
David Sharpness
I've read that the ancient Egyptians made their wall paintings in the
tombs from a single book, like a clip art book.
What I remember is the thought that there was a break in how things
looked, like the artists lost their skill, but then a return to the
standard, which seemed to be based on one particular tomb.
They lost the copybook and had to go down in a tomb and make a new
one.
Too, they used a grid system to make their drawings. In art class
I've done this, and it's a simple way to scale up a small drawing to a
large format.
There's something of a mystery to how they did things in the dark.
The grid and the copybook seemed to be good explanations of how they
did things, and how the paintings and engravings remained so
consistent over the generations. But just how they did things in the
dark I've wondered about, as many do. And too how they made things so
big and precise-I'm thinking of the hieroglyphs and billboard size
things on the pylons and pillars. (I've pounced billboards!)
I think I've read too that the Pyramids were illustrated.
Recently they pulled up a styla from the dives on lost city near
Alexandria, and it is an exact duplicate, except for a word or two, of
one found a few decades back.
I've seen what chlorine, or muratic acid, does to cement. A pool
supply store was at the entrance to the housing track I grew up in,
and walking along the curb I could see the groove worn into the
curbing by the chemicals that were washed into the street. I haven't
tried it, but I suspect some stones, especially limestone, can be
softened by chemicals, and then etched or carved.
Oh, but that's not the curious notion this post is about, it's about
the making of the paintings in the tombs in the dark!
I think they had lenses, and maybe the camera obscura. This notion
hopped into my head reading David Hockney's new book about the use of
the camera obscura by Renaissance artists.
He makes a good argument, which is borrowed and documented in his
bibliography. The most telling argument was the sudden improvement in
realism of Durer's drawings. And others.
Egyptian painting is far from realism! But it is very precise, and by
painting I mean the engravings of hieroglyphs too. And it too is in
sharp contrast with earlier art, which would indicate a technological
break through.
If you look up camera obscura in the google groups search you'll
discover that it only works in a darkened room, and best with a white
wall.
I think the Egyptians went down in those tombs in the dark and all
they could see was the copoybook image cast on the white walls. It
was just a matter of tracing. The grids may have just been used to
set the size.
How's that for a notion!? Nuts I guess! But, well, look what an old
Ptolemy knew about optics:
Web snip
Ancient Writings of Optics
Several ancient manuscripts give us datable evidence of the state of
refraction and optics throughout the ages.
* 2nd Century BC: Claudius Ptolemy:Described a stick appearing to bend
in a pool of water, and accurately recorded the angles to within 1/2
degree for this relationship. He then very accurately calculated the
refraction constant of water.
End snip
And this...
Camera:
The source of camera is a latin word that means "a room" or "a
chamber". The full name of the device for taking pictures was
originally camera obscura, meaning "dark chamber". Today this name has
been shortened to camera.
End snips
There's another area of optical like precision in ancient art, the
Greek vases, both their paintings and shapes.
The Egyptian were very fond of reflecting pools, and I imagine them
star gazing into them and making their astronomical calculations.
I don't know if we know all they could do with the reflective
properties of water, or glass, as they had glass.
David
Rainbow, CA
1.02.02
mdeli
>Ancient Egyptian camera obscura
>
>I've read that the ancient Egyptians made their wall paintings in the
>tombs from a single book, like a clip art book.
Don't believe everything you read
>
>There's something of a mystery to how they did things in the dark.
>Oh, but that's not the curious notion this post is about, it's about
>the making of the paintings in the tombs in the dark!
All Egyptian work was done by spacemen who didn't need light to see.
>I think they had lenses, and maybe the camera obscura. This notion
>hopped into my head reading David Hockney's new book about the use of
>the camera obscura by Renaissance artists.
> The most telling argument was the sudden improvement in
>realism of Durer's drawings. And others.
Durer was trained as a goldsmith and there are fine drawings he did at
about 15.
>If you look up camera obscura in the google groups search you'll
>discover that it only works in a darkened room, and best with a white
>wall.
>
>I think the Egyptians went down in those tombs in the dark and all
>they could see was the copoybook image cast on the white walls. It
>was just a matter of tracing. The grids may have just been used to
>set the size.
>
>How's that for a notion!?
Brilliant!
>Nuts I guess! But, well, look what an old
>Ptolemy knew about optics:
>
>Web snip
>
>Ancient Writings of Optics
>Several ancient manuscripts give us datable evidence of the state of
>refraction and optics throughout the ages.
>* 2nd Century BC: Claudius Ptolemy:Described a stick appearing to bend
>in a pool of water, and accurately recorded the angles to within 1/2
>degree for this relationship. He then very accurately calculated the
>refraction constant of water.
>
>And this...
>
>Camera:
>The source of camera is a latin word that means "a room" or "a
>chamber". The full name of the device for taking pictures was
>originally camera obscura, meaning "dark chamber". Today this name has
>been shortened to camera.
These astounding facts should convince all here that Hockney was
right.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Alison A Raimes
> Don't believe everything you read
Does that apply to your own little publication, Mani?
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
need light to see."
Deep down you do have a sense of humour - you should let it out more often -
it may help you understand art.
have fun: keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c34ab90...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Paintstaines
ancients were capable of all sorts of wonders that we ourselves cannot
duplicate precisely to this day. Do you think that it might also be possible,
however, that the tomb painters might have used a form of stencil to place
marks on the wall that they then painted over?
Paintstaines
David Sharpness
Yes, I think that's how it could be done, that's how it was done in
the painting of billboards. The image was projected and scaled up
onto paper, where the lines were traced, and then perforated. With
the other helpers I'd go up on the stage and roll out the paper on the
billboard where we used charcoal ponce bags and make the charcoal
outlines.
Once all that was done (we assembled the billboard scetions on high
racks) the artists would sequester themselves on the stage (like a
window washers stage) and happily paint for a week or so on each one.
Most of them did fine art on the side.
I saw one explanation on a TV show that said they came in, made the
grid, and then freehanded it all, figures and hieroglphys in just a
few days. So that could be too, as I've read the olive oil lamps dont
give off any soot(they never find soot on the paintings). I dont
think they've ever found lamps, or painting tools left about--they
cleaned up after themselves pretty good.
Since I posted...I found a thought, and thought one up! It's been a
mysterey why the interiour of the great pyramid is unpainted, but it's
suggested they deorated it with draperies, rugs, wall hangings and
such--which might put the kebash on the notion that it is a hydralic
pump! That's the thought I found searching the archive.
Our eye is like the camera obscura, and the Egyptians liked to stylize
things, and I wondered if maybe the temples in one of their many
meanings are meant to represent our eye. At the temple of Abu
Symbal(?) on the summer solstice the sun shines through and strikes
the holy of holys deep inside the temple, somewhat like Stonehenge and
the way the sunlight works there. That's like the sunlight going
though our pupil casting the image on the back of our eye, which may
be the...I dont know how to describe it....neatest thing!
That cement building that survives in Rome, the Pantheon(?), has that
little hole in the middle of the roof, and is like this too.
Now that one I thought up!
David
Rainbow, CA
1.06.02
Zoe Beit
dshar...@yahoo.com says...
>Since I posted...I found a thought, and thought one up!
Well, I have held off responding to your post
on Egyptian methodology for the simple reason
that I know very little about "how" they did
what they did. But I do know that the Egyptians
were far advanced over cave dwellers. If you
really want to ponder the mystery of the ancients,
why not begin with why people would enter the
darkest recesses of caves to paint images?
They for sure had neither olive oil lamps nor
mirrors. Only bone and stone implements to work with.
And when I think of my own experiences entering
caves where no natural light can exist, I can
truly marvel at their fearlessness. For surely
the were fearless to have been able to do what
they did.
I've seen it postulated that the source of lighting
for some of the Egyptian tomb art was sunlight
reflected off of mirrors. But when you consider
the lighting resources available to cave-age people
who painted images in deep natural
caverns, you get a real appreciation for
what was accomplished.
And if you want to see art that is truly fantastic
even today, go look at the relief carvings in
Iran and Iraq. In spite of millenias of weathering
and human defacings, the stone carvings of figures
are incredible in the detailing, like the cuticles on
fingernails, etc. Then look at the tools the ancients
had to work with - no Dremel rotary carvers or
air-driven chisels, etc.