REVERSE PERSPECTIVE

Reverse perspective, or what is also called Byzantine Perspective, is when the geometrical construction on the paper opens toward you, often as a spacetime rupture. Traditional perspective, as defined in Representational Spacetime, is when the perspective closes away from you: think of a set of train tracks as they converge.

As Goodman tells us,

“Reversed Perspective often occurs in Oriental, Byzantine and medieval art; sometimes standard and reversed perspective are even used in different parts of one picture…” pp.15.

I had never heard of RP, and I’ve been reading about this stuff for over 5 years now. Gombrich, for one, does not mention it. Panofsky, for another, doesn’t. Ching doesn’t (sort of a joke there, but then Ching is sort of a joke.) The Wikipedia entry for RP classifies it as a murky convention.

“The reasons for the convention are still debated among art historians; since the artists concerned in forming the convention did not have access to the more realistic linear perspective convention it is not clear how deliberate the effects achieved were.” (link)

Clemena Antonova writes:

“Thus, the following could be accepted as a working definition of reverse perspective – it is “directly connected with the dynamics of the viewing position: the form of reverse perspective is the result of the summarizing of the viewer’s perception under the conditions of a multiplicity of viewpoints, that are themselves the result of the dynamics of the viewing position.” pp.42.

I am making a big deal of this precisely because it is ignored. Here is another spacetime, another mode of knowledging marks on paper, another pictorial system, with it’s own rules, and it is a historical footnote. We ignore RP, and yet there are all of the pointless paraline drawing depictions, like the isometric, the trimetric, plan obliques, etc., all written as gospel in Ching (see pp 25, 4th addition.) And yet, why? Why the Western interest in these nearly identical isometric variants, and yet no interest in Reverse Perspective?

Anatova gets it when they use terms like “summarizing the viewer’s perception,” “multiplicity of viewpoints” and “dynamic viewing position.” All of these understandings involve time. The inclusion of time makes form possible. Time yields a holistic and complete understanding.

This only adds to my argument and theory: we really do not understand how limiting the Western visual mindset is. We do not understand the choke hold our Western strictures have on our imaginations. We are not aware that it is possible to operate outside of these strict cultural limitations. And the cost of this mindset is net cultural knowledge loss.

So here we have a drawing convention, which has been completely ignored in Western symbolic manipulation. Until now. Now, RP will now be included within the framework of Draw Like a Byzantine.

1. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art. Bobbi-Merrill Company. New York. 1968.
2. Antonova, Clemena. Space, Time and Presence in the Icon: Seeing the World with the Eyes of God. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham Surrey, England. 2010.