Holbein's Skull

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

On Feb 15, 8:24*am, "Androcles" wrote:
In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
*displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
*http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

There's also definitely something peculiar going on with the left
supraorbital ridge and cheekbone. There are vague irregularities in
the jaws where teeth or tooth sockets should be seen. The jawbone
itself seems unnaturally thin below the molars, but unnaturally long
at the point. And the entire nose is rotated 20 degrees off vertical.

Unless the skull belonged to someone with Proteus syndrome, Holbein
flunks his anatomy, given that he should have had a suitable model at
hand,

Your grade is too generous, Androcles.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Feb 15, 4:33*pm, tadchem wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:24*am, "Androcles" wrote:

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
*displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
*http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

There's also definitely something peculiar going on with the left
supraorbital ridge and cheekbone. There are vague irregularities in
the jaws where teeth or tooth sockets should be seen. The jawbone
itself seems unnaturally thin below the molars, but unnaturally long
at the point. *And the entire nose is rotated 20 degrees off vertical.

Unless the skull belonged to someone with Proteus syndrome, Holbein
flunks his anatomy, given that he should have had a suitable model at
hand,


Holbein flunks nothing: if at all his outstanding skull painting is
not completely well-projected, but even as it is that skull is
stunningly accurate and very hard to paint the way the artist did.
Of course, other explanations are possible:

1) The skull is completely accurate and one must look at the painting
from the side and, perhaps, and from an almost flat angle (180 deg.)
with the painting's plane;

2) The projection rendered from the original Holbein's apinting isn't
accurate.

Tonio


Your grade is too generous, Androcles.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:24:59 -0000, "Androcles" wrote:

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

The painting was intended to be displayed on the left wall at the top of a flight of stairs.
The viewer would be *below* and to the left of the painting.
It really is visually correct when seen from that perspective.
Been there, seen that.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:24:59 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

The painting was intended to be displayed on the left wall at the top of a
flight of stairs.
The viewer would be *below* and to the left of the painting.
It really is visually correct when seen from that perspective.
Been there, seen that.

I have no doubt your analysis of relative position between observer
and image is almost certainly correct, but a computer can project
mathematically more accurately than Holbein could.
When you recognised a skull you failed to recognise it as a distorted
skull. What you saw matched your mental image of what a skull
should be. You did not notice the rear tooth was more representative
of a canine than a molar.
Lowell saw canals on Mars because they had been suggested to him,
you saw a skull because Holbein visually suggested it to you.
Your subjective view lacks the objectivity of a computer.
Keeping subjectivity out of science is an esoteric science in its own
right. See Tom Davidson's reply.

"Androcles" writes:

As for Einstein, who will rid science of that meddlesome priest?

Internal bleeding already did, back in 1955. Incidentally, Einstein was
not a priest. He was a physicist. Now, who will rid us of tiresome pests
in news?

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:27:10 -0000, "Androcles" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:24:59 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

The painting was intended to be displayed on the left wall at the top of a
flight of stairs.
The viewer would be *below* and to the left of the painting.
It really is visually correct when seen from that perspective.
Been there, seen that.

I have no doubt your analysis of relative position between observer
and image is almost certainly correct, but a computer can project
mathematically more accurately than Holbein could.
When you recognised a skull you failed to recognise it as a distorted
skull. What you saw matched your mental image of what a skull
should be. You did not notice the rear tooth was more representative
of a canine than a molar.
Lowell saw canals on Mars because they had been suggested to him,
you saw a skull because Holbein visually suggested it to you.
Your subjective view lacks the objectivity of a computer.
Keeping subjectivity out of science is an esoteric science in its own
right. See Tom Davidson's reply.

You seem to be complaining that:
1. A graphic artist working in 1533 didn't use a computer.
2. A graphic artist (not a scientist) isn't accurately 'portraying reality'.
3. A graphic artist is relying on subjective visual interpretation by his viewers.
4. That he was an artist not a scientist.

Apparently you are not aware of the difference between the GRAPHIC ARTS and GRAPHIC SCIENCE.
In addition, Holbein admitted that it was a joke and ".... a bit of fun with perspective
projection".

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:27:10 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:24:59 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

In Holbein's "The Ambassadors", Death is depicted as a skull to be
observed not from the front of the painting but from the side.
Unfortunately Holbein's projection is of a head with the nose
displaced to port and the chin to starboard.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...lbeinSkull.JPG
Nice try, Holbein, but overly ambitious... B+.

The painting was intended to be displayed on the left wall at the top of
a
flight of stairs.
The viewer would be *below* and to the left of the painting.
It really is visually correct when seen from that perspective.
Been there, seen that.

I have no doubt your analysis of relative position between observer
and image is almost certainly correct, but a computer can project
mathematically more accurately than Holbein could.
When you recognised a skull you failed to recognise it as a distorted
skull. What you saw matched your mental image of what a skull
should be. You did not notice the rear tooth was more representative
of a canine than a molar.
Lowell saw canals on Mars because they had been suggested to him,
you saw a skull because Holbein visually suggested it to you.
Your subjective view lacks the objectivity of a computer.
Keeping subjectivity out of science is an esoteric science in its own
right. See Tom Davidson's reply.

You seem to be complaining that:
1. A graphic artist working in 1533 didn't use a computer.
2. A graphic artist (not a scientist) isn't accurately 'portraying
reality'.
3. A graphic artist is relying on subjective visual interpretation by
his viewers.
4. That he was an artist not a scientist.

Apparently you are not aware of the difference between the GRAPHIC ARTS
and GRAPHIC SCIENCE.
In addition, Holbein admitted that it was a joke and ".... a bit of fun
with perspective
projection".

You seem to be a whining moron that doesn't like having his
subjective views poke at for a bit of fun.
Apparently you are not aware. See Tom Davidson's reply,
and then **** off.