    
|
|
||||
|
References: 1. Hubert Damisch, The Origin of Perspective (1987), trans. John Goodman (Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 1994), p. 410. To assign the authorship of the Assisi frescoes to Giotto is questionable. One might read the allusion of Damisch to Giotto as a referential one rather than an attempt to address the quagmire of authorship per se. Regarding "the Assisi problem" see Giotto in Perspective, ed. Laurie Schneider (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974), pp. 14-16. 2. Referring to Giotto's contributions to illusionisitic depth, Lorenzo Ghiberti notes: "He brought forth naturalistic art and gracefulness with it never deviating from proportion. He was expert in all the arts, he was an inventor and discover of much theory which had lain buried for around 600 years." See Lorenzo Ghiberti, "The Commentari (c. 1450)," translated from I Commentari, vol. 2, edited by Ottavio Morisani (Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1947), pp. 32-33, in Giotto in Perspective, ed. Laurie Schneider, pp. 39-40. In the "Introduction" to Giotto in Perspective Schneider notes: "For Ghiberti, it was Giotto rather than his and Alberti's contemporaries who spearheaded the Renaissance restoration of art. But like Alberti, he refrains from a discussion of perspective in connection with Giotto. In Ghiberti's view, Giotto deserves praise for his use of proper proportions-presumably the organic system based on the observation of nature." Schneider, ibid., p. 7. 3. Regarding the commonalities and differences between Euclidian optics and Renaissance perspective, see, for example, M.H. Pirenne, Optics, Paintings and Photography (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 148-149, referred to in Michael Podro, The Critical Historians of Art (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982, 1991) pp. 187-189. See also Damisch, ibid., pp. 160-164 regarding the extent to which various Renaissance theorists and practitioners questioned the role of perspective within the realm of the ancients. 4. Damisch, pp. 262-263. 5. Laurie Schneider Adams, Art and Psychoanalysis (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 86. 6. Richard Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982). 7. Ibid., p. 196. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. For example, referring to the interrelation of the vanishing point and the visible horizon Alberti writes: "For me this line is a limit above which no visible quantity is allowed unless it is higher than the eye of the beholder [literally: the eyes that see]. Because this line passes through the centric point, I call it the centric line." Alberti, quoted in Damisch, p. 386. 11. Ibid., p. 253. 12. Damisch, p. 117. 13. From Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature (1975), trans. Dana Polan (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), pp. 20-21. 14. For an analysis of modernist art as a counterpart of ideology see, for example, Romy Golan, Modernity and Nostalgia: Art and Politics in France Between the Wars (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). 15. Giacomo Manzù in Curtis Bill Pepper, An Artist and The Pope (London: Peter Davies, 1968), p. 108. 16. Denis Diderot, "Letter of the Blind: For the Use of Those Who See" (1789), in Diderot's Selected Writings, ed. Lester G. Croker, trans. Derek Coltman (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 27. 17. Ibid., p. 23. 18. See Pepper, p. 30. 19. See Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Norton, 1977), p. 86, p. 92 on Diderot. Regarding life and money see "The Subject and the Other: Alienation," ibid., pp. 203-215. 20. Ibid., p. 225. 21. For an analysis of the work of Richard Serra in relation to "the depersonalizing conditions of industrial labor," see Rosalind Krauss, Richard Serra/Sculpture (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1986), pp. 15-38. |
||||
