Was Rembrandt Wall-Eyed?
Lance
Wed Sep 15, 5:12 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
BOSTON (Reuters) - Rembrandt, the 17th-century Dutch master
known for his skill in using light to carry perspective, may have been
wall-eyed, a U.S. researcher proposed on Wednesday.
Reuters Photo
Yahoo! Health
Have questions about your health?
Find answers here.
An analysis of 36 self-portraits of the great painter suggest he
had a strabismus -- a misalignment of one eye that caused it to point
slightly outward.
This condition, popularly known as wall-eye, may have given
Rembrandt van Rijn an advantage in translating three-dimensional
scenes into two-dimensional paintings, said Margaret Livingstone, a
Harvard Medical School (news - web sites) neurobiologist.
"It illustrates that disabilities are not always disabilities.
They may be assets in another realm," Livingstone said in an
interview.
"I like the idea that there may be a biological basis for
different talents, even if it's something as dumb as a lack of depth
perception."
An inability to see with world with normal depth perception can
be an advantage to an artist, who must flatten a view to render it
accurately, Livingstone said.
Art teachers often advise students to close one eye when they
compose a painting.
Livingstone and Harvard coauthor Bevil Conway looked at 36
self-portraits painted by the prolific artist. In 23 out of 24 oil
paintings, Rembrandt's right eye gazes to the right while the left eye
looks straight ahead, they write in a letter in this week's issue of
the New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites).
Livingstone said because the paintings were done looking in a
mirror, the left eye is probably the one that was off center.
A dozen etchings he did of himself show the other eye off
center. But left and right are reversed in an etching, which is made
by scratching lines on a metal plate and using the plate to make a
print.
Livingstone said the works show Rembrandt's errant eye to be
gazing off center by an average of 10 degrees.
As a result, Rembrandt probably could not see in stereo, which
requires the proper alignment of the two eyes. About 4 percent of the
population suffers a similar problem.
Only one oil painting shows the correct orientation of the eyes.
"We wonder whether Rembrandt painted it from an etching, or whether it
was painted by a student looking directly at Rembrandt, and not at a
mirror image," the researchers wrote.
Philip Preston
Lance wrote in message <35c8b586.0409...@posting.google.com>...
>Wall-Eye May Have Helped Rembrandt's Vision
>
> Wed Sep 15, 5:12 PM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!
>
>
>
> BOSTON (Reuters) - Rembrandt, the 17th-century Dutch master
>known for his skill in using light to carry perspective, may have been
>wall-eyed, a U.S. researcher proposed on Wednesday.
> Only one oil painting shows the correct orientation of the eyes.
>"We wonder whether Rembrandt painted it from an etching, or whether it
>was painted by a student looking directly at Rembrandt, and not at a
>mirror image," the researchers wrote.
I wonder if they have considered the possibility that Rembrandt used two
mirrors placed at right angles, an arrangement that gives a right-way-round
image.
Regards,
Philip.
Lance
"Philip Preston" <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I wonder if they have considered the possibility that Rembrandt used two
> mirrors placed at right angles, an arrangement that gives a
right-way-round
> image.
>
I don't know what they have considered. Do you know if your two-mirror
arrangement was commonly used at the time?
Lance
Philip Preston
Lance wrote in message ...
I don't. I am remarkably ignorant of art history. The thought was prompted
by David Hockney's discovery that art historians tend to be remarkably
ignorant of optics.
Regards,
Philip.
Lance
I have not read David Hockney's recent book. (I have read a biography,
but that is another matter). But I think his recent book was an
argument that many artists used a camera obscura in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Now I can recall reading just such opinions from art
historians writing in the 1960s. This was common agreement especially
about the work of Vermeer. So it seems to me that the art historians
were much less ignorant than David Hockney would have you believe.
Lance
Philip Preston
Lance wrote in message <35c8b586.04091...@posting.google.com>...
In a TV programme Hockney made to explain his ideas he said he had discussed
them with many art historians and found not a single one who had previously
been aware that it is possible to create a projected image with a curved
mirror rather than a lens. I suppose he could have been fibbing but I've no
reason to think he was.
Regards,
Philip.
Lance
"Philip Preston" <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I have not read David Hockney's recent book. (I have read a biography,
> >but that is another matter). But I think his recent book was an
> >argument that many artists used a camera obscura in the 17th and 18th
> >centuries. Now I can recall reading just such opinions from art
> >historians writing in the 1960s. This was common agreement especially
> >about the work of Vermeer. So it seems to me that the art historians
> >were much less ignorant than David Hockney would have you believe.
>
> In a TV programme Hockney made to explain his ideas he said he had
discussed
> them with many art historians and found not a single one who had
previously
> been aware that it is possible to create a projected image with a curved
> mirror rather than a lens. I suppose he could have been fibbing but I've
no
> reason to think he was.
>
the early 1970s, that clearly states Vermeer used a camera obscura. And that
is a "popular" book, rather than a specialist one. I have other books making
similar claims.
Lance
Philip Preston
Lance wrote in message ...
>
AFAIK lenses were generally available in Vermeer's time, so unless your book
explicitly mentions the use of curved mirrors for projecting images I don't
understand what it is supposed to be an example of.
Regards,
Philip.
Lance
"Philip Preston" <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In a TV programme Hockney made to explain his ideas he said he had
> >discussed
> >> them with many art historians and found not a single one who had
> >previously
> >> been aware that it is possible to create a projected image with a
curved
> >> mirror rather than a lens. I suppose he could have been fibbing but
I've
> >> no reason to think he was.
> >>
> >Well for example I own a "Time-Life" book on Vermeer, I think published
in
> >the early 1970s, that clearly states Vermeer used a camera obscura. And
> that
> >is a "popular" book, rather than a specialist one. I have other books
> making
> >similar claims.
>
> AFAIK lenses were generally available in Vermeer's time, so unless your
book
> explicitly mentions the use of curved mirrors for projecting images I
don't
> understand what it is supposed to be an example of.
>
> Regards,
> Philip.
>
See the review of Philip Steadman's book "Vermeer's Camera" on Amazon where
it is noted that "Since the 19th century, experts have speculated that
Vermeer used a camera obscura, an early precursor of the modern camera."
Steadman himself has been conducting research into the topic for more than
30 years. He doesn't agree with all of Hockney's claims.
Hockney's claims:
http://www.arcspace.com/news/hockney/
Steadman's views:
http://www.vermeerscamera.co.uk/home.htm
Lance
Philip Preston
Lance wrote in message ...
>
That, if Hockney is to be believed, art historians tend to be remarkably
ignorant of optics. I'm not trying argue that his theories about the
historical use of optical devices are right or original.
Regards,
Philip.