THE EFFECT OF ONE POINT PERSPECTIVE

ON RENAISSANCE ART

Academic Paper for: History of Modern Arts

June 15, 2016

It is considered as one of the most important strides the Renaissance pioneers made. After the stagnant
period of the dark ages, the Romanesque and then the Gothic, the invention of the perspective with
mathematical proportion technique in art brought about one of the fastest changes in representation of social
and cultural events and beliefs since the classical period.
Perspectives are used to rationalize the representation of space by creating a better way of organizing
more complex compositions. Perspective gave Renaissance artists the means to produce a compelling
illusion of depth. It also provided the means for drawing the spectators eye to the key figure1. This paper
will show the re-emergence of the art of perspective in modern art and analyze the difference it made in the
field of painting.
The concept of perspective is not a new discovery for Renaissance artist. The idea has always been there,
especially during the Roman Period. The Mosaic Battle of Issus at Museo Archeologico Nazionael in
Naples clearly shows that the Romans where not only aware but also had a clear understanding of the
perspective technique.
But this paper is not about the Roman perspective. This is about the re-emergence of the concept from Late
Gothic to its highest point in of the Renaissance era.
Cimabues Crucifixion is one of the earliest of the late gothic works with a glimpse of the sense of depth in
the painting. But just like previous works of art of the time, the sense of exaggeration and creating focus on
the main character or event is done with size difference; the figure of Jesus is un-proportionally bigger than
the other figures and occupies the central place of the composition.
The illusion of depth is shown from the slight inclination of the ground on the bottom of the painting
towards the foot of the cross and where most of the figures stood on. Differently from what was done before
the, the crowd is on the same level, only heads exposed and the level of detail on the faces or heads
decreasing from front to back. This is a new technique since before this artist vertical perspective, a
technique of putting one figure over the head of the other without any difference in size and detail, was
used to describe the order of figures in space as in Duccio Di Buoninsegnas Vrgin and Child Enthroned
with Saints where we see the saints on both sides of the thrones put with one over the other vertically.
Another example to illustrate the last idea of vertical perspective we can refer Cimabues Santa Trinita
Madonna where the way angles are arranged in the normal way of vertical perspective of the late Gothic
Style. But in this painting we also see the attempt to create illusion of space by the use of inclined line that
radiate from the front edge of the throne on the foot of the painting giving the sense of depth. The main
focus of this painting is emphasized by the centrality of the throne, the size of the Madonna and the way
she is sitting which is facing the viewer.
Ducios enthroned Madonna and Child, now familiarly known as the Ruccelli Madonna, is another early
example of the emergence of the idea of perspective and depth in paintings. The first most important thing
to notice on this work in the throne us set at an angle. This suggests space. The orthogonal lines create the
illusion of space while making the Child to face the viewer at a more frontal angle makes Him the central
figure.
The next artist to come and make a big step towards perspective was Giotto. The Organisseti Madonna
shows the rapid evolution from his teachers technique in expressing space and the physicality of the
characters in the painting. We see foreshortening of the throne from all sides and the angles are standing on
the ground creating a rational space for all of them to exist in. The placement of the throne also puts the
observers in a specific location. We see the base of the throne inclined upward while the roof of the throne
I tilted downwards creating space that goes inwards.
Giottos works at Arena (Scrovegni) Chapel show the illusionism that will develop in latter artists works.
On the wall above the entrance we can see the idea of foreshortening being used on the image of Enrico
Kneeling and handing the Chapel over to the Virgin Mary. But on the painting of the last judgment we see
the same style of Cimabues vertical perspective and enlarged figure of the main figure Christ.
Giotto didnt work with linear perspective nor did he have any guiding principles when working with
perspectives. Thats why his technique is simply called intuitive perspective since the only guide was
intuition and assumption.
The painting Peaceful City by Amergio Lorenzeti, Siena, Italy,1338-1339 can be a great example of
intuitive perspective used intensively. The sense of depth, the foreshortening, and the proportionality of the
elements in the composition show how much the idea of perspective was becoming a very integral part of
representing the environment. The arrangement of the buildings facing the viewer in an angle rather than
on face is a very important switch from previous styles too, which help in the enhancement of the sense of
depth.
The transition from intuitive perspective to a real one point perspective was carried out by the two most
influential, perhaps the people who kick started the renaissance era Filipo Brunelleschi and Leon Battista
Alberti. Brunelleschi took the culture of painting to a new level when he discovered the art of perspective.
Although they were not preserved, he painted two panels in the course of an experiment which changed the
model of representing paintings. The first was a view of the Church of San Giovanni di Firenze. Though
his method was more empirical than geometrical, his discovery made Brunelleschi an even bigger
personality of his time. Leon Battista Alberti wrote the treatise on paintings showing in detail how to use
the technique which made the technique to spread within the artists of the time. He is credited as the person
who help change the art of the time in a quick pace, while Brunelleschi kept his techniques a secret for a
while.
Massaccios Virgin and Child Enthroned shows what a difference the art of perspective can make on art
works. Comparing it with Cimabues and Giottos works of similar concept, one can see the advancement
in creating the illusion of space and depth. Massaccio used the newly discovered one point perspective to
organize the figures putting the horizon line on the lower frame of the throne and the vanishing point lays
on the intersection of the central line of the throne and the horizon line. This puts the observers eyes right
below the feet of Christ.
Massaccio is the first to use the perspective on paintings. One can observe the effect of the perspective not
only on the throne and the fact that the Virgin is occupying a space, but on the halo above Christs head. It
is foreshortened in an angle as if it was a real thing above Christs head. The way the angles are seated is
also very different from what Cimabue and Giotto did on their works. On this work it can be seen that the
two angles are sitting in front of the throne with foreshortened lutes where a space can be felt in between
them and the Virgin, while the other angles are on the sides of the throne with throne covering part of their
body which is an effect created because of perspective and the illusion of depth.
Another work by Masaccio which shows a very systemic use of perspective is The Tribute Money in the
Brancacci Chapel. In this painting we see some important elements. One being the vanishing point is on
Christs head which makes him the focus of the composition by pulling the observers eyes to Him. This
also makes the horizon line on the heads of the figures, this puts the observer in front of the figures. This
makes the space in the painting to be a continuity of the real space that it is places in.
The other element is that the placement of the tax collector. Here he is taken almost equal attention with
the main figure, Christ, both in size and location. The effect of this naturalistic approach is a total departure
from all the previous styles.
Andrea Mantegna is one of those renaissance masters that pushed the art of painting to another level. His
San Zeno Altarpiece in Verona is a transition from the representation used in the 15th century to the more
sophisticated representation of pictorial space of the high renaissance with its very elaborate detailing and
naturalism. This work not only represent depth and space in its composition, it does so by creating an
illusion of continuity with the physical world. The wooden frames that have four Corinthian columns that
create a view towards the space represented in the painting. He put more classicized pictorial columns in
the painting behind the Corinthian columns a continuity from the observers space to the pictorial space.
The garland that unites the two parts seem to be on the edge of the real space and the pictorial space. Mary
is the center of the composition with angels surrounding her. For the purpose of emphasis, it seems,
Mantegna has represented the angles as babies to create the size difference which would make Mary bigger
than them.
It is worth mentioning that Mantegnas level of skill was beyond imagination. On San Zeno Altarpiece
alone one can observe the level of precision, detail and accuracy of the figures. His deep understanding of
classical art and architecture, the understanding of the human anatomy, the art of light and shadows puts
him as one of the most skilled painters of his time. This is important when you look at another master work
of his, the Dead Christ. This painting has a very different and unique character. The way the perspective
and foreshortening works here is unnatural and different from the extreme perspective that he is
characterized with. Foreshortening here is used to focus the observer on the face of Christ. The perspective
creates a distorted body where the figure gets bigger when you go deeper into the face. The feet are smaller
than they would be with one point perspective while the head and chest is bigger. It can be observed that
this is done on purpose especially when you see how skilled Mantegna is. This is a very important example
to show how the rules of perspective can be ignored to create a much better and meaningful composition.
If the rules were followed, the feet of Christ would have been awkwardly dig and in front stilling the focus
from the point of the work.
Breaking the rules of perspective and naturalistic composition didnt stop with Mantegna. Michelangelo
made a lot of choices which are out of the customary way of working with perspectives and illusion of
space. For the first time since the beginning of the renaissance we find a renaissance artist working without
relative proportion and special connection. His works on the Sistine Chapel are one of the most mesmerizing
works of the renaissance period. The serious of paintings on the ceiling are separate scenes describing nine
events of the book of genesis. Each scene is in its own frame, a painted frame that is too realistic. One of
the most important characters of these works by Michelangelo is the lack of natural scenery which is a total
departure from the naturalistic style of the period. The twisting of the bodies is another important character
which enhances the depth and illusion of the space because the bodies seem to be in motion. This method
of painting twisting bodies and figures in an instance of time is distinctive character of Michelangelos
works.
The Sibyls on the edge between the walls and ceiling have a very unique foreshortening for paintings on a
curved surface and their relative size is un-proportionally exaggerated. Each figure here also are separate
scenes with unique characters and rules of perspective.
The Last Judgement of the Altar Wall in Sistine Chapel is an even extraordinary and unique composition
for a time defined by strict perspective and proportion rules. Christ as the center of the composition is
proportionally bigger than the other figures, the sense of depth is lost, and rather figures are put on a vertical
arrangement similar to late gothic works of artists such as Cimabue. The organization of the figures rather
than the vanishing point pushes the vision of the viewer towards the central figure, which is Christ. There
is no line of vision, no halo, no guiding geometric rule, no natural scenery unlike other renaissance works,
no proportion and no unifying elements are observed in this composition. But just like works of the
Romanesque time and Late Gothic the abstraction still makes the work of art meaningful. Naturalism as a
style may have brought a lot of advancement to the world of art, bit it has also erased the intuitive technique
that earlier works implemented to express meaning. But Michelangelo went back to the basic ideas of
composition and borrowed some of this ideas and methods that this early artists used to express his figures.
This is the character Michelangelo brought, he follows the rules till they become constraints and is not
afraid to break them when he finds it convenient.
Giulio Romano is another important artist with very distinct style and works. His works in Palazzo Te
especially the paintings in The Room of The Giants shows mannerism, the style Michelangelo is credited
for, in a glorious illustration giants and grotesques wreaking havoc, fury and ruins and the Room of Pshche
shows a varying vanishing point for the paintings on different levels.. The perspective The Room of The
Giants is very dramatic in a sense it puts the observer in the middle of the event. The way the figures
continue from wall to ceiling is too smooth that one loses the sense of edge and boundary. The
foreshortening toward the center of the ceiling is so realistic. The proportionality of the figures gives the
observer on site experience. One of Giulios great accomplishment in this room is the way he erased the
corners of the room to create a complete scene.
The Room of Pshche has compositions that have different angles of foreshortening, when u go from walls
to the ceiling u find three different angles each creating the illusion of space extending beyond the surface.
Even though there are a lot more works of art that could be included in this paper, the above mentioned
works could be enough to elaborate the premises of the paper. From the first works one can understand that
before the discovery of perspective ideas and meanings where transferred with simple representation,
proportion, and position. The goal of the Late Gothic and Romanesque artists was to represent meaning
than to imitate reality or creating artistic product.
The discovery of perspective created another dimension to representation. It created a way to put peoples
ideas on a more naturalistic scene. This made it easy to understand people some ideas and teachings, it also
was effective in showing people that the saints or holy personalities was humans, they have bodies, they
feel pain and they are the same. By doing so the way religious personalities are seen changed.
As the art grew and the sophistication get more complex, the ideas that are meant to be transferred started
to be overshadowed by the artistic concern of the works. And sometimes one point perspective can create
unwanted focus when used in some compositions. Mantegnas the Dead Christ is a very good example of
this. This showed that perspective was not a perfect solution for representation. Thats why after that we
see more and more people breaking the rules so as to make their composition better. Michelangelo took it
one step further when he brought back some of the techniques used by late Gothic and Romanesque artists.
Altering the proportion and vertical perspective like what we see on the last Judgement, putting additional
figures around the main composition with a different proportion as seen on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel
and others are some of the obvious examples.
As a conclusion the art of perspective was a driving force for a rapid cultural advancement that took place
in the 14th and 15th century. But its development pushed the intuitive technique that was easy to express and
represent figures out of existence for about a century and half till it was reevaluated by the mannerist artists
and others after the reformation. Even though it was a very realistic representation, it was also very
confusing for most people to understand the main point of the composition. The aesthetic quality of the
works of art and the ultrarealistic imitation of the natural scenery blurred the point of the composition.

Bibliography
Kubovy, Michael. The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1986. Print
Gardner, Helen, and Fred S. Kleiner. Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History. Boston:
Thomson/Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
Paoletti, John T., and Gary M. Radke. Art in Renaissance Italy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1997. Print.

Other references:
www.khanacademy.org