Comments on: Others See it Yet Otherwise: The Cosmic Systems http://www.mysteriousmasterpiece.com/astronomy/others-see-it-yet-otherwise-the-cosmic-systems A Mysterious Masterpiece Mon, 10 May 2010 13:36:08 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Alex http://www.mysteriousmasterpiece.com/astronomy/others-see-it-yet-otherwise-the-cosmic-systems/comment-page-1#comment-17 Alex Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:33:27 +0000 http://www.mysteriousmasterpiece.com/?p=348#comment-17 I'm not sure we should be overly concerned by the dodgy perspective of the (octagonal or otherwise) central table. We're evidently intended to be able to see clearly all of the objects it bears, so tilting it - even though it distorts the naturalism of the scene - is a sensible, practical solution that serves to emphasize key objects. Re: No. 6 - I think it is definitely a painting (one can make out the landscape quite clearly), but it is certainly odd. The paint is thinner here than elsewhere - as you say, Nick, one can see through to the wall below - so it seems this might have been an afterthought. We've wondered in the past whether Linder - in the 'patron and artist' portrait - might not be pointing to this very spot on the drawing he holds, so maybe there's some special significance to this little round picture that eludes us? I’m not sure we should be overly concerned by the dodgy perspective of the (octagonal or otherwise) central table. We’re evidently intended to be able to see clearly all of the objects it bears, so tilting it – even though it distorts the naturalism of the scene – is a sensible, practical solution that serves to emphasize key objects.

Re: No. 6 – I think it is definitely a painting (one can make out the landscape quite clearly), but it is certainly odd. The paint is thinner here than elsewhere – as you say, Nick, one can see through to the wall below – so it seems this might have been an afterthought. We’ve wondered in the past whether Linder – in the ‘patron and artist’ portrait – might not be pointing to this very spot on the drawing he holds, so maybe there’s some special significance to this little round picture that eludes us?

]]> By: Nick Wilding http://www.mysteriousmasterpiece.com/astronomy/others-see-it-yet-otherwise-the-cosmic-systems/comment-page-1#comment-16 Nick Wilding Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:42:14 +0000 http://www.mysteriousmasterpiece.com/?p=348#comment-16 The green table seems more complicated to me. First, I'm not sure we can claim it's octagonal (there might be just enough edge showing to test this - I don't see opposite sides meeting in a fixed spot, or opposite sides at all). This sounds weird, but if you take a good look at all the medals lying flat on its surface (supposing its surface is flat, which I'm not), the geometry is all wrong. I realise the astrolabe is resting on another object, but this should tilt it further towards us, not away. More peculiarly, the celestial globe isn't spherical - its top isn't above its bottom. I thought at first that perhaps its back leg was resting on a book, but this doesn't explain the non-sphericity. The Galileian compass seems almost parallel to the viewing plane. I have no idea at the moment what this might mean, only that, if one of the readings is that painting rests on design, the design is either 'wrong' or trying to provoke some reaction. Incidentally, regarding N.6 'Landscape with figures' - Unless there's substantial surface wear here (which doesn't seem to be the case) why can you see the wood behind? To me, it looks like an unbacked convex mirror / lens, reflecting a bizarre view of the viewer / painter as a hermit or stranger. The green table seems more complicated to me. First, I’m not sure we can claim it’s octagonal (there might be just enough edge showing to test this – I don’t see opposite sides meeting in a fixed spot, or opposite sides at all). This sounds weird, but if you take a good look at all the medals lying flat on its surface (supposing its surface is flat, which I’m not), the geometry is all wrong. I realise the astrolabe is resting on another object, but this should tilt it further towards us, not away. More peculiarly, the celestial globe isn’t spherical – its top isn’t above its bottom. I thought at first that perhaps its back leg was resting on a book, but this doesn’t explain the non-sphericity. The Galileian compass seems almost parallel to the viewing plane. I have no idea at the moment what this might mean, only that, if one of the readings is that painting rests on design, the design is either ‘wrong’ or trying to provoke some reaction.

Incidentally, regarding N.6 ‘Landscape with figures’ – Unless there’s substantial surface wear here (which doesn’t seem to be the case) why can you see the wood behind? To me, it looks like an unbacked convex mirror / lens, reflecting a bizarre view of the viewer / painter as a hermit or stranger.

]]>