17TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GEOMETRY AND GRAPHICS ©2016 ISGG

4–8 AUGUST, 2016, BEIJING, CHINA

THE SPATIAL MODELS IN THE TREATISE

DE PROSPECTIVA PINGENDI BY PIERO DELLA FRANCESCA

Riccardo MIGLIARI1, Federico FALLAVOLLITA2 and Marta SALVATORE3

13
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy 2 Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Italy

ABSTRACT: De Prospectiva Pingendi is a Treatise whose destiny is best reflected in the title: a
work dedicated to painters, that teaches them the art of illusion. It therefore teaches them to con-
struct an image that evokes the depths of space, passing through walls and painted tablets, to show
landscapes, environments and human figures, seen as we see them in our daily experience of the
world. Thus, for centuries, what has attracted the attention of readers and exegetes to this work, was
the final result of Piero’s teaching: the prospective or, to better say, the perspective image. Conse-
quently, the Treatise has been thoroughly investigated in the context of art history, less in the histo-
ry of methods of representation. On the occasion of the Italian National print Edition which, for the
first time, considers the Latin and Vernacular manuscripts, as well as all of Piero della Francesca’s
original drawings, the treatise has been the object of in-depth analysis and critical review. This re-
view highlights the two space models Piero mastered permitting the construction of perspective.
The first of these models, used in the First and Second Books, is that of the space as it appears, or
as we would say today, the projective space. Piero states the law that describes the compression of
this space as a function of the distance by the observer as a succession of magnitudes. This law has
an unsuspected generality and alone provides a theoretical support to all subsequent perspective
constructions, even in the absence of expedients, such as the distance point, that appears unrelated
to Piero della Francesca’s concept. The second model, which is used in the Third Book, is that of
space as it is. This model is not theorized, but only practiced. And yet we can find, in the model,
characters that are specific to the method in its full maturity: the presence of associated orthogonal
projections, the control of movements in order to handle items in general location and the discreti-
zation of the modeled forms. Perspective is a bridge between those two conceptions of space and
between the ancient and the modern world.

Keywords: Perspective, Descriptive Geometry, Representation Methods

1. INTRODUCTION Thus, the Treatise was thoroughly studied

De Prospectiva Pingendi, written by Piero
della Francesca at the end of the Fifteenth cen-
tury, represents the first illustrated treatise of
perspective that history has given us.
It is, as is noted, a work by a painter dedi-
cated to other painters, to teach them the art of
perspective, namely the construction of images
that evoke, to the eyes of an observer, an illu-
sory depth of represented space. For centuries,
the approach to the study of this work has in-
volved perspective and the procedures for its
construction.
more from the point of view of art history, ra-
ther than that of the history of representation.
On the occasion of the Italian National print
Edition which, for the first time, considers to-
gether the Latin and Vernacular manuscripts
and all autograph drawings of Piero della
Francesca (which are contained in the manu-
script code n. 616 of the Municipal Library of
Bordeaux and in the manuscript code n. 1576
of the Palatine Library of Parma), the Treatise
has been the object of in-depth analysis and
critical review (The Italian National print

Paper #00
 Figure 1: The two graphical models of the Treatise,
mss. n.616, Bibliothèque Municipal de Bordeaux, ff. 10v, 35r, 74v.

Edition is currently in press by the Istituto 2. MODELS OF 3-DIMENSIONAL SPACE

Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato).
The results of this study have shown that the
treatise is not only a treatise on perspective.
This work, in fact, contains within itself, and
solves, the main issue facing representation,
albeit indirectly: the problem of the description
of three-dimensional space on
two-dimensional media.
The solution relies on the construction of
two graphic models: the prospectiva (perspec-
tive) and the propia forma (proper form).
While prospectiva describes the space as it ap-
pears, consistent with the real vision, and is
widely discussed in the text, the propia forma
describes the space as it is and, while not ex-
plicitly theorized, is skilfully performed. The
real protagonist of the Treatise is therefore not
perspective but space, how it appears and how
it is. In this view, the De Prospectiva Pingendi
is configured as a Descriptive Geometry Trea-
tise, the first of the modern era and the first that
history has ever given us [1-2-11].
Representing means constructing a graphical
model of an object on which you can carry out
geometrical operations that simulate similar
physical operations, such as sections, projec-
tions and various movements. Instead of an
image, which refers to a three-dimensional
a shape but is unable to control it, a representa-
tion is a two-dimensional graphic and symbolic
structure that can replace the three-dimensional
object, providing a faithful image.
In the De Prospectiva Pingendi two graphic
models of this type coexist, which Piero defines
in the introduction disegno (drawing) and
commensuratio (proportion), in other words
proper form and perspective. These two models
are associated in the Treatise to the two modi
(ways) proposed by Piero to construct the de-
graded figures of the observed objects (fig. 1).
The first modo (way), used in both the First
and Second Books in the case of simple sub-
jects, teaches the drawing of degraded figures
through a method that operates directly in the
prospective space and that, therefore, employs

2
 Figure 2: Form and size of perspective image.
the commensuratio. The second modo, which
Piero uses in the Third Book in the case of
complex subjects, teaches the construction of
degraded figures through a graphic procedure
which requires the construction of the plan and
the elevation of the subject observed, and
which then uses the disegno.
For the purpose of attributing the value of
'space models' to the drawings of De Prospec-
tiva Pingendi, it is sufficient to find, in the fig-
ures illustrating the Treatise, the presence of
two associated projections. In the perspectives
of plane figures of the first modo, the two
drawings in question are the proper form and
perspective. Their association is represented by
a relationship that today we call 'homological',
because it affects homologous pairs of entities,
one real and the other shortened or degraded.
This relationship is defined by Piero by means
of two pairs of corresponding elements. The
first couple is formed by one of the sides of the
reference square, perpendicular to the picture
plane, and its perspective; the second couple is
formed by a diagonal of the reference square
and its perspective.
Even more obvious is the recognition of or-
thogonal projections in the proper form figures
of the Third Book. Here, the two projections
are provided by the drawing of the plan and of
the elevation to which, at times, is added a side
projection or an overturning. These drawings,
which have the same scale ratio [7], are always
associated, either through the recall lines, or
3
through the use of symbols or because they are
overlapping.
These drawings are not thus mere
two-dimensional images of the objects repre-
sented, but three-dimensional models of the
same, and are the first, in the History of science,
to possess this peculiar characteristic, therefore
deserving of further investigation.
3. MODEL OF SPACE AS IT APPEARS
For the purpose of constructing a model of
space 'as it appears' it is necessary to establish a
law that defines how the quantities that are
equal in Euclidean space degrade in perspective
space. The degradation of the apparent magni-
tudes is subject to two variables, which deal,
respectively, with the form and size of the per-
spective.
The 'form' depends on the observer's dis-
tance from the subject observed. The more the
observer approaches the object, the greater the
differences in the degradation of the magni-
tudes; on the contrary, the further away the ob-
server is to the object, the more these differ-
ences are reduced. The difference between the
real and the degraded magnitudes tends toward
zero when the distance from the object and the
observer gravitates toward infinity (fig. 2).
The 'size', instead, depends on the observer's
distance from the picture plane. The shorter this
distance, the smaller the size of the perspective
image; conversely, the greater this distance, the
greater the perspective image (fig. 2). From an
operational point of view, the situation in
which the picture plane is very close to the ob-
server corresponds to that of a perspective
painted on a table; the situation in which the
picture plane is more distant corresponds, in-
stead, to a broken-through prospective, i.e. to a
quadrature.
It can also be said, in summary, that the first
considered variation, which covers the distance
between the observer and the observed objects,
describes the laws of optics already theorized
by Euclid, those of the perspectiva naturalis.
Instead, the second variation regards the dis-
tance between the viewer and the picture plane,
describing the laws studied by Piero of the
perspectiva artificialis.
In a passage between the eleventh and
twelfth proposition of the First Book, a passage
which, curiously, is the only one of De Pro-
spectiva Pingendi not illustrated, Piero enunci-
ates a law that is a wonderful synthesis of the
complex behavior of the degradation of appar-
ent magnitudes, which depends on the variation
of the two parameters previously considered:
Et hora, perché voglio dire de le linee et su-
perficie degradate, è necesario essa proportione
dimostrare, perché quando dico proportional-
mente che è proportione intendo, perché le
proportioni sono inumerabili, et questa non è
dupla commo è 2 et 4 e 8, et nonn è sexquialtera
commo 4, 6, 9, né sexquitertia commo 9, 12, 16,
né tripla, né quadrapla, ma dico essere propor-
tione degradata, non commo 4, 8, 12, 15, né
commo 6, 9, 11, 12, ma è secondo la distantia
da l’ochio al termine dove se mecte le cose de-
gradate et la distantia dal termine a la cosa ve-
duta. Cioè così: sono quatro linee equidistante,
et l’una da l’altra è uno braccio, et sono lun-
ghe uno braccio, et sono infra do linee para-
lelle, et da la prima linea che è termine a
l’ochio è quatro braccia; dico la seconda a la
prima essere sexquiquarta, et la terza a la se-
conda nel termine è sexquiquinta, et la quarta a
la terza nel termine è sexquisexta. (First Book,
Proposition 11) [6]
4
To better understand the proposition, we
must imagine a painter, a wall to paint (termine
or picture plane), and a set of equal magnitudes
placed at equal intervals, as in the example
provided by Piero (fig. 3). Let us suppose, then,
that the magnitudes are long one ell, that the
range is one ell wide and that the painter, or the
observer, is four ells away from the picture
plane, where the first of the magnitudes will be
found. It is easily seen from the similarity of
triangles that the second degraded size will be
4/5 of the first, that the third will be 4/6 of the
first, and so on. Piero does not consider these
relationships, but rather those between the first
magnitude and the second degraded one, be-
tween the second and the third degraded one
and so on, which are easily obtained from the
previous ratio, that are (1):
(5/4), (6/5), (7/6), … (1)
In the example proposed, the magnitude that
rests on the picture plane, at four ells away
from the observer, is 5/4 of the perspective of
the following magnitude at five ells away from
the observer. The perspective of this second
magnitude is 6/5 of the perspective of the third
that follows, and so on. Consistent with the
ways of the abacus schools, Piero gives no
demonstration of this law, which, however, is
exemplary and is expressed by means of a suc-
cession of ratios (2, 3):
an = (x + 1)/x (2)
namely:
(2/1), (3/2), (4/3), (5/4), (6/5), (7/6) ... (3)
The fraction expresses the ratio between the
degraded size and the one that follows; the de-
nominator indicates the distance of the observer
from the picture plane, which can be arranged
in any point of the sequence. As proof of the
validity of this description, we observe that for
very large distances of the observer from the
observed magnitudes, the ratio of the degrada-
 Figure 3: Graphical representation of the degradation law of the apparent magnitudes.
tion tends to unity, as happens in the projec-
tions from an improper center.
Piero chooses to consider the ratio between
foreshortenings, rather than the ratio between
foreshortenings and real magnitude. In this way,
he needs not consider the distance between the
observer and the picture plane, thus expressing
a law that operates in the perspectiva artificial-
is but that is also valid in the perspectiva natu-
ralis.
The enunciation of the aforesaid, that, if
proven, could rightfully be called ‘The fun-
damental theorem of De Prospectiva Pingendi’
[12], is not in itself sufficient to solve the ap-
plication problem, i.e., the perspective drawing.
This ‘theorem’, while legitimizing all the con-
structions of the Treatise, does not provide di-
rect support.
If the ratios between degraded sizes start
from an experimental analysis and find gener-
alization in the formulation of a law, the con-
vergence of images of lines perpendicular to
the picture plane is, however, an experimental
datum. Evidence of this can easily be checked
by using a mirror with which it is easy to see
how reflected images of straight lines that are
perpendicular to it, converge in the reflection of
5
the observer’s eye (fig. 4). It is difficult to be-
lieve that the mirror was used to draw the per-
spective experimentally, but it is certainly like-
ly that the mirror gave, even to Piero, a con-
crete and sensitive indication of that conver-
gence [10].
In the first and second books Piero uses the
same letter (A) to indifferently indicate the eye
and the principal point, which represents the
reflection in the mirror, where the aforemen-
tioned perpendicular lines converges. In the
Third Book, instead, the eye is associated with
the O letter which, however, does not appears
in perspective images, where it would be easy
to identify the principal point and exploit it for
constructions. The fact is that Piero has no idea
what the vanishing point is and, therefore, what
the distance point is. To understand Piero and
appreciate the greatness of his contribution to
the History of descriptive geometry, it is oblig-
atory to forget all that the following centuries
have taught us (Martin Kemp in [4]): in partic-
ular, the vanishing points of the image as the
direction of a star of parallel straight lines. In
fact, all our current perspective culture and all
the constructions emanating from it, are based
on this concept, which is totally absent from
 Figure 4: The point A is the reflection of the observer's eye,
mss. n.616, Bibliothèque Municipal de Bordeaux, f. 6v.

Piero’s culture. The concept of infinity has no ically on the proper form of the square, are
place in the Treatise, an idea that will not transferred, always graphically, to the degraded
flourish before the middle of the Seventeenth figure. In this way, the 'force of lines' substi-
century, when geometry will be changed due to tutes the calculated degradation according to
the projective expansion of space [5]. Piero's the previously mentioned law. In all the
model is again only a Euclidean model. propositions of the Second Book Piero operates
The prospective model of the De Prospec-
tiva Pingendi space is thus a finished model,
which can be identified with the sides of the
square that houses the plane figures of the First
Book, and the ground plan in the solid figures
of the Second. Among the degraded forms of
this square and its proper form, there is a
two-way relationship we now call homological,
which Piero cleverly controls. Therefore, for
each geometric entity in proper form there is a
corresponding perspective image and vice versa.
In most of his constructions, Piero moves from
the proper form to get the perspective, but
seems well aware of the two-way nature of the
relationship that he established. This is demon-
strated in proposition 15 of the First Book, in
which he constructs directly into perspective
space the perspective of a square divided in
twenty-five parts and subsequently finds its
proper form (fig. 5).
Proposition 15 legitimate the drawings in
which, for brevity, the proper form will be
omitted, such as all those of the second book Figure 5: The homological relations of
(fig. 6). Here, the relations established graph- the Proposition 15 of the First Book.
6

Figure 6: A prism figure of the Second Book,
mss. n.616, Bordeaux, f. 21r.
directly in perspective space by acting directly
within the appearance of things, as it would in
the physical reality of space.
4. MODEL OF SPAC E AS IT IS
The construction of 'space as it is’ is repre-
sented in all twelve propositions of the Third
Book. The process used for the degraded image
representation is structured around three stages
Figure 7: The perspective of an Attic base with the second modo,
step 1, construction of the proper form.
7
that are repeated equally for all prop ositions:
the construction of the proper form, the degra-
dation of the proper form, the construction of
the degraded figure.
In the first phase, the object is represented as
it is (fig. 7). This drawing step includes an
analysis of the geometrical structure of the ob-
ject, simple in the case of regular shapes such
as square, octagon and the cube, extremely
complex in the case of partially modeled fig-
ures, like the italic capital, or organic, such as
the human head.
In the second phase, once the center of pro-
jection and the picture plane are established,
Piero constructs and sections, in plan and ele-
vation, the star of straight lines that has for
vertex the center of projection and for rays the
lines detected by the center itself and by the
vertices of the geometric structure that discre-
tizes the object (fig. 8). The coordinates of the
intersection points of the star with the picture
plane are recorded graphically on a wooden
ruler and on two parallel strips of paper, so as
to be able to reconstruct the points on the pic-
ture plane, by sliding the wooden ruler on the
two paper strips fixed to the sides of the paper.
Finally, in the third step, the perspective
image of the object studied is reconstructed,
linking the points generated in the previous step
(fig. 8). Despite the repetition of the procedure,
there is no theoretical reference in the text
about the representation in proper form. Piero
merely says:
Perhò è de bisogno sapere fare tucti li con-
torni mensuratamente de quello che l’omo vuol
fare, et quello ponere sopra il piano nelli luo-
ghi loro in propia forma, del qual modo darò
notitia nelle dimostrationi che seguitaranno.
(Third Book, Proemio) [6]
This significant 'gap' permits the assumption
that the level of knowledge concerning the rep-
resentation in plan and elevation had reached,
in Piero’s time, a certain maturity, and it would
therefore be shared by painters, elective readers
of the Treatise.
Piero uses the proper form with a surprising
maturity for the era. This is not a representation
purely for the construction of perspective, but
rather the instrument responsible for the control
of generative form processes, giving his draw-
ings a strong design connotation. Piero imagi-
nes three-dimensional models of objects [8]
and makes use of the representation in plan and
elevation to control the construction and to be

Figure 8: The perspective of an Attic base with the second modo, step 2 and 3,
degradation of the proper form and construction of perspective image.

8
 Figure 9: The construction of 28 lacunars of the coffered dome,
overlap of the 3D dome model on f.102r, mss. n.1576, Palatine Library of Parma.
able to communicate it to the reader.
Particularly significant in this regard is the
case of the dome, in which the majority of the
proposition is dedicated to the construction of
the 28 lacunars of the coffered dome [13], re-
solved using the approximate plane develop-
ment of a spherical sector (fig. 9).
In some cases, the genesis of the form can
be particularly difficult due to the necessity of
discretizing continuous surfaces. This is the
case with organic or semi-modeled forms, as
human head or italic capitals; it is probable that
Piero has used a physical model on which to
locate the landmarks.
The most significant sign of the maturity of
the proper form method is the ability to move
objects represented in space through processes
known today as 'change of projection planes'. If,
in fact, the ability to flawlessly represent ob-
jects in three dimensions in plan and elevation
is documented by many Greek and Roman fig-
ures of antiquity [3-8-11], the ability to make
use of same to move the objects represented in
space or to section line and plane, is attested
with certainty, for the first time, from Piero’s
drawings. Hence, it is the cube figure which
9
undergoes translation and a double rotation (fig.
10). In particular, the second of the two rota-
tions does not move around an edge, which
would make it easier to control, but around a
vertex, by imposing the condition that all the
others are moving on planes parallel to the or-
thographic plane, which Piero represents in
plan. The procedure used for the construction
of the rotated cube finds a second application in
the case of the reclining human head. Here, the
plan derives from two associated drawings, a
prospectus and a profile, which is the meridian
plane of the head overturned on the icnographic
plane (fig. 11). The same process is used today
to construct the projections of a figure given in
proper form.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In the dual vision of space, which is charac-
teristic of the De prospectiva pingendi, not only
does one see the origins of perspective as a
method of representation, but also the origins
of the associated orthogonal projection method,
that of Descriptive geometry. More precisely, it
shows an actual conception of space as an ani-
sotropic infinite space, which is the prospective
 Figure 10: The movements of a cube, mss. n.1576, Palatine Library of Parma, ff. 42v, 43r.

space. To this latter space, a finite isotropic considered. Thus, once this is accomplished, it
space is overlapped, referring to the space of wou ld be possible to imagine a History of
measures and to the proper form of objects. the scientific representation of space that con-
When you consider the Piero’s Treatise as a siders these two models, so well combined in
harmonious synthesis of text and drawings, in Piero della Francesca’s work.
which neither of the two components can do
without the other, it can easily be seen that the
relative importance of these two ways of con-
ceiving space and operate in it, is equivalent.
Although Piero says little or nothing about the
disegno, namely the representation of objects in
proper form, disegno however plays a decisive
role, as much in the first two books, due to the
homological correspondence between proper
form and perspective, as well in the third book,
because of the description and the degradation
of the proper form of objects.
During the entire history of the Treatise, it is
above all appreciated for the results that it pro-
duces: the perspective image, constructed with
the two modi, that are still proposed in the
teaching of perspective. Figure 11: The human reclined head,
If, to achieve that outcome, the concept of mss. n.6161, Bordeaux, f. 86v.
two overlapping spaces for different purposes,
i.e. see and measure, must be mastered, then,
the possibility of overcoming the dualism that
separates the History of perspective from the
History of descriptive geometry must also be
10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are pleased to thank: Marisa
Dalai Emiliani, Carlo Maccagni and Ottavio
Besomi, members of the Commission responsi-
ble of the De Prospectiva Pingendi Italian Na-
tional Edition; Franca Ela Consolino, Flavia
Carderi and Chiara Gizzi, curators of the Latin
and Vernacular edition of the texts; Leonardo
Baglioni, Marco Fasolo, Matteo Flavio Mancini,
Jessica Romor, curators, together with the Au-
thors, of the diplomatic and critic edition of the
Piero’s autograph drawings. The considerations
expressed in this study are the result of the col-
laboration of the scholars mentioned.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Andersen. Piero’s place in the history of
descriptive geometry. In M. Dalai Emiliani
(ed.), Piero della Francesca tra arte e
scienza, Arezzo-Sansepolcro, atti del Con-
vegno Internazionale di Studi a cura di M.
Dalai Emiliani, pp. 73-95, 1996.
[2] K. Andersen. The Geometry of an Art. The
History of the Mathematical Theory of
Perspective from Alberti to Monge.
Springer, New York, 2007.
[3] F. Camerota. Renaissance Descriptive
Geometry: The Codification of Drawing
Methods. In Levèvre Wolfgang (ed.), Pic-
turing machines. 1400-1700, pp. 175-208,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, London, 2004.
[4] F. Camerota. La prospettiva del Rinasci-
mento - Arte, architettura, scienza. Mon-
dadori Electa, Milano, 2006.
[5] U. Cassina. La prospettiva e lo sviluppo
dell’idea dei punti all’infinito. In O. Chisini
(ed.), Periodico di Matematiche, volume I,
Storia – Didattica – Filosofia, pp. 326–337.
Zanichelli, Bologna, 1921.
[6] P. della Francesca. De Prospectiva Pin-
gendi, 1460-1480. Critical edition edited by
G. Nicco-Fasola, Le lettere, Firenze,
1984.
[7] F. P. Di Teodoro. Vitruvio, Piero della
Francesca, Raffaello: note sulla teoria del
11
disegno di architettura nel Rinascimento.
Annali di architettura 2002.14: 35-54.
[8] J. V. Field. A Mathematician’s Art. Yale
University Press. 2005.
[9] C. Inglese and A. Pizzo. I tracciati di can-
tiere di epoca romana, progetti esecuzioni e
montaggi. Gangemi Editore, Roma, 2014.
[10] M. Kemp. La scienza dell’arte. Prospettiva
e percezione visiva da Brunelleschi a Seu-
rat. Giunti, Firenze, 1994.
[11] G. Loria. Storia della Geometria Descrit-
tiva dalle origini sino ai giorni nostri.
Hoepli, Milano, 1921.
[12] R. Migliari, M. Salvatore. Il ‘teorema fon-
damentale’ del De Prospectiva Pingendi. In:
M. T. Bartoli, M. Lusoli (ed.), Le teorie, le
tecniche, i repertori figurativi nella pro-
spettiva d’architettura tra il ’400 e il ’700,
pp. 3-23, Firenze University Press, Firenze,
2015.
[13] M. Salvatore. Propia forma e prospectiva
del catino absidale di Piero della Francesca.
In: M. T. Bartoli, M. Lusoli (ed.), Le teorie,
le tecniche, i repertori figurativi nella
prospettiva d’architettura tra il ’400 e il
’700, pp. 56-64, Firenze University Press,
Firenze, 2015.
[14] J. A. Ruiz de la Rosa. Traza y Simetrìa de la
Arquitectura - En la Antigüetad y Medievo.
Pubilcatione de la Universidad de Sevilla,
Sevilla, 1987.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
1. Riccardo Migliari is Full Professor in
Fundamentals and Applications of Descriptive
Geometry since 1990 at the Faculty of Archi-
tecture at the ‘La Sapienza’ University in Rome.
He is assiduously engaged in research, particu-
larly in the areas of Descriptive Geometry and
of Representation and Instrumental Survey of
Architecture. He directed, as Scientific Manag-
er, the architectural survey of Coliseum in
Rome during the preliminary studies for the
restoration of the monument undertaken by the
Archaeological Superintendence of Rome.
From year 2003 he deals, in particular, with the
renewal of the studies on the scientific repre-
sentation of the space, within in the evolution-
ary picture of the descriptive geometry, from
the projective theory to the digital theory and
from the graphical applications to the digital
modeling. http://www.migliari.it
2. Federico Fallavollita is Associate Professor
of Drawing at the Department of Architecture,
Alma Mater University of Bologna. Architect,
PhD in Science of Representation and Survey
at Sapienza University of Rome (2008).
http://www.unibo.it/faculty/federico.fallavollita
3. Marta Salvatore is Researcher at the De-
partment of History, Drawing and Restoration
of Architecture, at Sapienza University of
Rome. PhD in Survey and Representation of
Architecture and the Environment, she is en-
gaged in research in the areas of Descriptive
Geometry, Representation and Instrumental
Survey of Architecture. In particular, she di-
rects her research activities to the Descriptive
geometry, its history and its renewal through
the digital synthetic method, by digital tools of
representation. She is author of several articles
on the subjects, available on her website:
www.martasalvatore.it

12