Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule"

Author(s): Malcolm Park

Source: Leonardo , 2013, Vol. 46, No. 3 (2013), pp. 259-265, 212
Published by: The MIT Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23468273

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TECHNICAL ARTICLE

Brunelleschi's Discovery
of Perspective's "Rule"
ABSTRACT

Malcolm Park B runelleschi's lost panel

painting of the Florence Baptis
tery, created in the early 15th
century, is frequently cited as
the first work to accurately use
perspective. The system he
used is unknown, and the only

T
information about the painting
mentions a demonstration by
which the painting was viewed
M w(
, wo panel paintings created in Florence
certainly
by the
suggest that he discovered through a hole in the panel as
architect and sculptor Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446)
something ofareimportance. Accord a reflected image in a mirror.
The author argues here that the
ing to Manetti,
extremely important in the history of perspective. Subject "he
to [Brunelleschi]
image was created in a camera
much speculation, the dates given for these works generally
originated the rule that is essential obscura using the panel and a
range from before 1413 to around 1425. Although
to whatever
now has
lost,
been accomplished mirror in the same relationship
these two panels are considered the first works since his time"
to have used[3].aWhat was that as used in the demonstration.

system of perspective that accurately conveyed rule

theand how was it established?
appearance The author also proposes that
the process revealed perspec
SinceThe
of their subjects as seen from a particular viewpoint. the actual
first means by which
tive's basic "rule": Vanishing
painting depicted the Baptistery, San Giovanni, and thecreated
Brunelleschi sec the panel's impoints for parallel, horizontal
ond a view across the Piazza della Signoria. Our ageknowledge
is unknown,of we can only specu lines exist at the eye level.
these paintings is limited to descriptions in a short late. biography
Some scholars have accepted
of Brunelleschi, Vita di Filippo di Ser Brunelleschi, that he constructed
attributed to the painting's
Antonio di Tuccio Manetti (1423-1497) [1], Theperspective date of the by some geometrical,
biography is unknown. It was probably written mathematical after 1482 and or measuring procedure. Others have proposed
some 60 years after the creation of the two panel that he recorded
paintings. Atan image reflected by a concave mirror [4],
times Manetti's description is unclear, but thepainted most the detailed
image seen in a flat mirror [5], or recorded the
information is of the Baptistery painting andimage Brunelleschi's
projected in a camera obscura [6] (darkened room). Ma
"demonstration" of how it was to be viewed as a reflection in netti does explain some aspects of the painting's production,
a mirror. Because Manetti states he actually held theaspaint well as circumstances of the later demonstration, including:
ing, his description of the physical arrangement of the that Brunelleschi's viewing position was "some three braccia"
panel
and mirror is generally accepted as accurate. He does(approx. not 1.75 m) [7] inside the central portal of the Cathe
explain, however, the demonstration's underlying function. dral; that the panel's approximate size was "about half a braccio
Moreover, since his description was made many decades square"
after (approx. 28-30 cm) [8]; and, that one looked from
the reverse side of the painting through a hole made in the
the painting's creation, there is no certainty that Brunelleschi's
biographer understood the demonstration's original function. panel to view a reflection of the painting in a flat mirror held
Subsequent scholars have offered a variety of speculative in front
pro of the hole at an appropriate distance. The hole was
posals that raise concerns about Manetti's descriptionconical, and with its smallest diameter, "as tiny as a lentil bean"
what it actually achieved. Below I reassess the demonstration [9], on the painted side of the panel and at a position in the
and the research surrounding it. Baptistery's image that was directiy opposite the viewpoint.
The first treatise on perspective, written by Leon Battista The demonstration's purpose is less clear but, as "the spectator
Alberti (1404-1472) in 1435 [2], demonstrated howfelt a perhe saw the actual scene when he looked at the painting"
spective view could be constructed by geometrical means. [10], It
the accuracy of Brunelleschi's image and perspective was
is thought he was influenced in some way by Brunelleschi's confirmed.

presumed methodology, but even though Alberti dedicated I argue below that the demonstration was the means by
the 1436 Italian text version of his treatise to Brunelleschi, which Brunelleschi showed how the panel and mirror, with
there is no evidence to confirm such an assumption. What their relationship exactly as described by Manetti, were used to
was it, then, that Brunelleschi had actually discovered? In create an image from which the painting was developed. Thus,
conceptual terms, it seems Brunelleschi accurately transposed the painted image was not only the outcome of the process; it
a perceived view from a particular viewpoint onto the two was also the means by which the process was demonstrated. 1
dimensional surface of the painting's panel. Subsequent events propose that the details of the demonstration's purpose were
lost with the passage of time and the demonstration became
identified by historians as an important procedure in itself.

Malcolm Park (art historian), P.O. Box 45, The Junction, NSW, 2291, Australia. E-mail:
<mpark24@bigpond.com>.
See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/46/3> for supplemental files associated with
this issue.
Panel
Manetti states that the viewer's eye looked through the coni
hole from its wide end in the demonstration. Not only wo
that approach reduce the angle of vision through the narr

© 2013ISAST doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00566 LEONARDO, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 259-265,2013 2 59

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ished metal or glass. It was most prob
ably glass since Manetti indicated he had
no difficulty in seeing the painting's re
flected image. Flat glass mirrors at that
V time were manufactured by blowing a
cylinder of molten glass, cutting it along
^ r
its length, opening the cylindrical form
"c /AV out to be flat and then forming the re
flective backing with a layer of lead, tin
SECTION
or pewter [12].
Notwithstanding Manetti's unambigu
ous description of the reflected image,
P
actual knowledge of the quality and spec
, ' 111—i
ular reflectivity of flat glass mirrors used
in Florence at the beginning of the 15th
century is somewhat limited and prob
x' lematic. General histories of glass and
mirrors note that it was not until the 16th
PLAN VIEW
century that mirrors of quality became
a) Mirror set 150 mm from painting
available, owing to the development
E/vh eye at viewing hole of
CV"crystal" glass and the introduction
centre of vision
m mirror p painting mirror surface of a tin/mercury reflective backing in
Murano/Venice in 1507. More detailed
histories, however, include references to
mirror making in Germany, France and
Flanders and state the Italians gained
><
their expertise from practitioners in the
Northern countries. We also know of

the existence of Italian glasswork pro

duction in Italy, most notably Altare,
Verona, Padua, Bologna, Ravenna and
SECTION Ferrara, at the beginning of the 15th
century [13]. In the knowledge that
Florence had been the center in Europe
of spectacle making, with its related pro
duction, grinding and polishing of glass,
historian Vincent Ilardi questions the
concerns about the clarity of 14th- and
15th-century mirrors and reveals that
"both metal and glass mirrors . . . were
PLAN VIEW
commonly produced and traded in great
b) Mirror set 278 mm from painting
quantities at least from the beginning of
the thirteenth century and probably ear
Fig. 1. Views of the reflectedlier, invalidating prevailing
painting image opinion that
as se
panel. The viewpoint is that used only metalwithin
mirrors were produced"
the cent [14].
the painting's image. (© Malcolm Park)
Sara Schechner offers a contrasting

Perhaps artists used mirrors as tools for

end at the other has alwaysside
been that ofit was made
the self-portraits,
after panel as aidsbutto perspective,
the as
judges of the penultimate product, or
widening of the the painting
hole
was finished
would
and its positionalso not allow
as symbols, but their use of mirrors as
the eye to bedetermined set closer by the painted to image.
the If,
projection narrow
equipment to achieve end remark
[11]. If one wanted to achieve the wid however, Brunelleschi made the holeablein naturalism in their art is as chime
est angle of vision when looking through the panel prior to painting the work,rical
suchas an argument for the existence
of the unicorn based on the creature's
a conical hole that carried through thean event would not have been known by,
clear reflection in the mirror held by the
thickness of a panel then, the eye should or evident to, any later observer, and the
lady in the famous tapestry La dame à la
be set at the side of the narrow end, not composition of the painting may indeed
licorne: La Vue [15].
the reverse. These facts suggest a possiblehave been influenced in some way by
alternative function of the conical hole: the hole's position—a very different
Given this range of opinion, it seems
proposition.
the transmission of a spread of light rays that the questions surrounding mirror
entering at its wide end at the back of production remain open. By extension, it
the panel and exiting at its narrow end is clear that there is some benefit in con
Mirror
on the painted side. sidering alternative proposals about how
The stage at which the hole wasManetti
made described the mirror as flat. the mirror was first used in conjunction
Thus we can assume it was either
can also be questioned. The assumption with the polBrunelleschi painting panel.

260 Park, Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule"

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Manetti did not note the shape and size 22 cm in length" [16], and Mark Pend but the reason fo
of the mirror. We know that the painted ergrast noting that "by the early fifteenth would surely be f
panel was square, and if the intention was century" sheets of glass "as large as 30-by portant than to vie
to see only the painting's reflected im 45 inches" were cut from blown cylinders mirror, supposedl
age, then the mirror was most probably [17], it is likely that a 15-cm-square flat It is also not certain if a viewer at

square also. As discussed below, a square mirror was available. the demonstration was to be located at

shape raises the problem of apparently Brunelleschi's original viewpoint and was
seeing only the painting's square im to look through the hole with the mirror
Reflected image
age through the round hole. If square removed to compare the painted image
and the painting side were 30 cm side, with
The first problem with the optics ofthetheactual view. As only the lower
then the mirror required to produce the part of the
reflected image in the demonstration, as Baptistery would be seen, a
painting's mirror reflection would need comparison
previously noted by many scholars, is that would not be possible. That
to be half that size, that is, 15 cm square. the painted image needs to beis reversed
shown in Fig. la, in which the reflected
With Ilardi stating that the frames for for the reflected image to relate
holeto in the
the painting is aligned with the
plane and convex glass mirrors at the actual view. Some have acceptedviewer's
thecenter
re of vision and the mirror is
time "varied in size from only 7.5 cm to versed painting image as a pre-condition, at which the view of the
set at a distance

reflected painting and that of the actual

Baptistery, when the mirror is removed,
are coincident. When the mirror is set at

a position to enable the full extent of the

Fig. 2. Location of the camera obscura box used by the author on site reflected painting to be seen, as shown
in Florence.
(© Malcolm Park) in Fig. lb, the background behind the
mirror is also seen. These two arrange
ments demonstrate how Manetti's claim

that, when looking at the reflected paint

ing, "the spectator felt he saw the actual
scene" was not achievable.

My Experiment

This analysis suggests that the actual pur

pose of Brunelleschi's demonstration has
been misunderstood. If the very same
physical arrangement of the panel and
the mirror is considered without refer
ence to the demonstration, and the trans
mission of light rays through the conical
hole is considered to be in the opposite
direction—that is, from the larger di
ameter end to the smaller—then an al
Cathedral Baptistery ternative function of the hole could be

SECTION A-A envisaged as the open aperture in a cam

Present - day floor and ground levels SP Viewpoint, camera obscura aperture era obscura that made no use of a lens. In
such a context the mirror would then re

flect the light rays onto the back surface

of the panel. If that surface were white,
if no other light source existed, and if all
Piazza San Giovanni ^ other surfaces within the camera obscura

/
were non-reflective black, then an image
/ of the scene in front of the hole could
/
theoretically be projected onto the white
SP
surface. If those light rays came from the
Baptistery, then its image in the mirror

4
aperture axis
V

cone of light rays (that is, if one were able to see it) would
59°
be inverted and reversed and the image
visible on the white surface would be
\
\
\ inverted but, importantly, not reversed.
\
If relevant points of that image were re
\ corded in some way, then a painting that
was not reversed could be created. Such
Cathedral
S. Zenobius Column
an outcome would mean that the pur
PLANI-
^"
1
0
A
A pose of Brunelleschi's later demonstra
0 5 10 20m
tion was to show, but in reverse sequence,
the way in which the painting had been
created. Viewers would have been asked

Park, Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule" 261

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 a fabricated box. As it was not possible
to recreate a camera obscura in which

one could record the projected image di

rectly on the panel, as proposed to have
been achieved by Brunelleschi within a
darkened room, the box was fitted with
a camera so that I could photograph the
projected image. I used the box since
it was the most convenient means to

project and photographically record the

a aperture hole
rn mirror, 17x17 cm
wp panel, matt white surface
bs matt black surface
PLAN AV camera/lens angle of view SECTION
Fig. 3. Details of the camera obscura box used by the author on site in Florence.
(© Malcolm Park)
to look, in daylight, through the holeused
at the principle in his experiment
although any proposal that Brunelleschi
its widest end at the back of the painting
may have used a mirror in such a hand
panel and at a mirror set in the same rela
could raise additional concerns, these
tive position in which the reflected image
in the camera obscura was created. concerns would be no different to those cation in Brunelleschi's time—and, sec
Up until now the only suggestion raised
that about the mirror used in the dem
Brunelleschi could have used a similar onstration. In other words, it would have
camera obscura without an aperture
been either the
lens was made by Shigeru Tsuji in 1990
equal quality.
[18], Tsuji proposed that the imageInwas
order to test the possibility that a
projected directly onto the panelcamera
used obscura incorporating a mir
ror could have been used to produce
for the painting, without the interven
the results predicted, I undertook an
tion of a mirror, and that the aperture
experiment
hole for the entry of the light rays was at the site in Florence with
image.
The pre-determined site location for
the box was influenced by the informa
tion from Manetti's description, which
says that it was behind the line of the
doors of the Cathedral's central portal
and calculated from published photo
graphs and the extremely variable di
mensional information from previous
scholarship. An asymmetrical cone of
light rays was required to encompass,
first, the visible width of the Baptistery
and sufficient sections of the piazza on
either
and, side of the Baptistery to include
the St. Zenobius Column on the right
device
side—even though it is known that
the column has been moved from its lo
ond, the full height of the Baptistery and
some section of the paving between the
same mirror or one of Cathedral and the Baptistery. The cone
was calculated to be approximately 59°
in plan and a minimum 55° in section
(comprising angles of 41° above the hori
zontal and 14° below the horizontal), as
shown in Fig. 2.
Details of the camera obscura box are

unrelated to the panel. The inverted

and reversed image of the Baptistery was
then recorded on the panel with painted
Fig. 4. Stages in the author's production and use of the image projected inside the camera
lines and completed in the studio. Oncebox onsite in Florence. (© Malcolm Park)
obscura
the painting was completed, the viewing
hole was made and the panel and mir
ror used in the demonstration all remain ■■
as described by Manetti. Of course, the
• ^
III
IJ
same problem arises with the painting ag«l
flHL
'

made as a reversed image and only seen '

correctly when viewed in the demonstra

tion's mirror.

L
mirror surface

J
There are two reasons scholars

other than Tsuji have not considered

Brunelleschi's possible use of a Stage
camera
1: Transmission of light rays Stage 2: Image reflected onto Stage 3: Image photographed
obscura to create the painting'sthroughimage.
aperture onto mirror white panel

First, it is claimed that only a vague im

age is produced by a camera obscura ,-T\
and, second, there is no documentary
evidence that any artist of that time, /On
including Brunelleschi, used a camera
obscura. Nevertheless, the principle in \ \

a
//
volved was known and used since before
CV/VP3
_VPI
antiquity, and we know that the camera
obscura was used in the 13th and 14th

centuries for observing eclipses of the

Stage 4: Photograph format Stage 5: Overlay drawing
sun [19]. That knowledge does not incorrected
it and rotated

self prove or disprove that Brunelleschi

262 Park, Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule"

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
shown in Fig. 3. The inside surface of the
34-cm-square front panel was painted
matte white, and a conical aperture hole,
with a 4.5-mm diameter at the inside face
and an angle of view of 90°, was drilled
where required by the geometry. A square
glass mirror of 17 mm/side was fixed to
the back panel at a position that would
reflect all the light rays required to create
50 cm
an image on the full extent of the white
panel. All inside surfaces other than the
mirror and front panel were painted aperture hole
matte black. A 45-mm-diameter hole was mirror

panel, matt white surface

cut in the mirror directly opposite the
with projected image
center of the front panel, a 0.3X wide matt black surface

angle lens adapter was secured behind

that hole, and a small digital camera was
SIDE VIEW REAR VIEW
connected to the adapter by means of
sliding tubes. A small graphic image was
fixed to the white face of the front panel
Fig. 5. Proposed arrangement used by
opposite the hole in the mirror to enable
obscura (darkened room) enclosure of
the camera to be focused on that plane.
Florence Cathedral. (© Malcolm Park)
In using a camera I understood that, with
an extended exposure time, any image
created on the white panel could be
made to appear much brighter than as
projected. I therefore anticipated thatthe
a external scene through the apertureVision (CV). Notwithstanding the slightly
relatively short exposure time would beonto the mirror. blurred image—caused by the size of the
essential to provide evidence of an imageStage 2: Image reflected onto the white
aperture hole being somewhat larger
that would have been sufficiently clearpanel. The image of the Baptistery is in a "pin-hole" and therefore creating
than
verted but not reversed.
for Brunelleschi to record. The top panel "circles of confusion"—VP1 and VP2 pro
was hinged to enable the projected im Stage 3: Image on the white panel vided is accurate lines of alignment for the
age to be observed by the naked eye, photographed with a wide-angle lens andforms of the building in perspective. The
even if only as a sliding view from above,
an exposure time of 2 seconds. When the
horizontal line through the center of the
while using a light-proof cover in the image on the panel was observed with aperture hole is the Eye Level/Horizon
process. the naked eye while using a light-proof Line (EL) and the Centre of Vision is also
I used the box onsite in Florence on cover, the level of illumination of the the Vanishing Point for any orthogonal
5 May 2009, with kind assistance and co
projected image seemed equivalent topaving lines (VP3).
operation from personnel of the Opera that of the recorded image on the cam Although the resulting image was cre
di Santa Maria del Fiore. The box was set era viewer and more than adequate forated with a present-day, but supermar
on a low platform in a position in front the projected image of the Baptistery toket quality, mirror and is not proof that
of the doors of the Cathedral's central be traced if one were physically able toBrunelleschi used a camera obscura,
portal and at a time shortly after do midso. the experiment did show that such an
day, when the shadow of the Bell Tower Stage 4: The photograph was later comapparatus could have produced an im
was no longer cast on the Baptistery's puter-corrected for the lens distortionage that was correct in perspective, was
east façade. The intended site behind to match the square format of the whitenot reversed and, in terms of clarity, was
the line of the doors was not available panel and rotated (see also Color Plate more than adequate for Brunelleschi's
at the time and the slightly larger image
B). That the photograph's exposure timepurposes. And, importantly, the function
of the Baptistery created at the location
was 2 seconds is confirmed by the reasonof the conical hole in the camera obscura
in front of the doors was accommo able clarity of the figure moving to the
also answered the question of why there
dated on the 34-cm-square panel. One
right is no logical connection between the ge
in the center-right foreground. The
relatively important aspect of the circle
image, at the top, where no light has beenometry of the aperture hole and its use
the St. Zenobius Column, was affected
reflected, is the position of the hole cutin the later demonstration. In such cir
by the circumstance of the day. Itsin the
basemirror for the lens/camera; the cumstances the later demonstration by
and lower section, which most probably circle of graphic imagery near the centerBrunelleschi with the panel and mirror
would have been visible in such an im is the element fixed to the white panel tois seen here as an afterthought.
age, were hidden by a stationary enable cano the camera to be focused on that
pied vehicle and the crowd at the entry plane; and the position of the 4.5-mm
Brunelleschi's Experiment
to the Baptistery. And the small cross at
diameter aperture hole has been drawn
its top is only vaguely evident.
and Demonstration
at a in the area of flared light.
The projected image and the process Stage 5: An overlay drawing confirmed I propose that Brunelleschi sought to un
of its subsequent recording and analysis that the vanishing points (VP1, VP2) derstand
for the geometry of foreshortening
are as illustrated in Fig. 4 and described the lines in perspective of the angled and see if some pattern existed with the
as follows:
walls are at the same level as the aperture
related points of convergence. He did so
Stage 1: Transmission of light rays from hole in the panel, which is the Centreby of realizing that if the image of a particu

Park, Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule" 263

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 me that, as long as any framing support
for the smaller mirror was not intrusive,
there was no difficulty whatsoever in see

i * 1
ing the full extent of the white panel or

ILJ
drawing on any part of its surface.
The proposed projected image and
I its subsequent recording and analysis is
mirror surface
illustrated in Fig. 6 and described as fol
lows:

Stage 1: Transmission of light rays from

Stage 1: Transmission of light Stage 2: Image reflected onto Stage 3: Image traced with lines the external scene through the aperture
rays through aperture onto mirror white panel and/or dots onto the mirror.

Stage 2: Image reflected onto the white

panel. The Baptistery is inverted but not
reversed.

Stage 3: Image on the white panel is

traced with lines and dots.
& ■^v Stage 4: Extended drawing: The panel
PCI
4^ CP/a
is removed from the enclosure and ro

tated. The drawing on the panel reveals

the relationship between the reflected
Stage 4: Panel removed from enclosure, rotated and used as basis for Stage 5: Final painting image and the aperture hole and shows
extended drawing Brunelleschi that its location in the im

age on the east facade of the Baptistery

Fig. 6. Stages in the production and use of the image projected inside a proposed camera was directly opposite the hole in the cam
obscura (darkened room) enclosure used by Brunelleschi on site in Florence. (© Malcolm era obscura, which had created the im
Park)
age. Importantly, this would have been
the first time a connection was made

between a point on an image and the

actual point from which the view was re
corded. On an extended format of the

panel drawing, Brunelleschi also could

lar building could be created in a camera panel, most probably larger than the fi then establish that points of convergence
obscura then one would be able to see nal painting, would have been painted for the angled walls (PCI, PC2) existed
where the form of the building, includ- white on its inside face, drilled for the at the same level. This would have been

ing the recession of any angled walls, was conical aperture hole with its smaller di the second major connection to be real
projected in relation to the aperture hole, ameter at the inside face and set parallel ized. The panel drawing also provided
as its virtual viewpoint. If such a projected with the Baptistery east wall. the framework within which the details

image could be traced in some way, then Why Brunelleschi selected the Baptis of the Baptistery and the surrounding
not only could an image be painted but, tery as the motif is not specifically known, buildings could be developed to create
importantly, the position of any points of but it would have provided many advan a preparatory drawing for the painting.
convergence for the foreshortened walls tages for his endeavors, including: its Stage 5: Final painting.
could also be determined and used for simple form and precise junctions; the In order to demonstrate how the

detailed plotting. Brunelleschi would symmetrical walls angled at 45° at each painted image had been created,
Brunelleschi would have asked observers
have also realized that an image ere- side of the east façade, providing a con
to look through the hole in the panel at
ated directly from light rays entering the firming symmetry for points of conver
camera obscura would be inverted and gence; its light-colored marble surfacethe mirror to see the reflected image of
reversed but would be inverted but not cladding providing a higher level of the painting and explained to them that
reversed if mirror-reflected. illumination than would darker or tex they were looking through the very same
To that end, the experiment would tured stone or brick hole by which
walls; andthe light
the rays entered the
dark,
have been undertaken from the position patterned stripscamera obscura
in the and werecladding
surface then reflected

within the central portal of the Cathe- providing lines to mirror

in the articulate the fore
and projected to create the
dral and inside a light-proof enclosure shortening of image on the panel.
the angled walls The
inpractical
the diffi
of some kind (Fig. 5). Its location was projected image. culties involved
Part of the in viewing
proposal the painting
possibly influenced by the relative ease that Brunelleschi in used
that way can explain
a camera why the purpose
obscura
of the demonstration could have been
of creating a camera obscura (darkened is the requirement that he would have to
lost or confused
room) within the portal, but its form is trace the projected image well before Manetti's
in some way.
not relevant and may have simply been If the image had biography.
been sufficiently visible
a closure of the portal at its front and and sharp, then lines traced over relevant
back faces or a separate structure or de- edges or surface lines or dots marked
Conclusion
vice. The Cathedral interior would not at relevant points and junctions of the
have provided a darkened backdrop, as image would haveIn this article
enabled him toI later
have proposed that,
its dome had not then been built. Inside develop a painted rather
image than
on thebeing of importance in i
panel,
self, Brunelleschi's
the enclosure were the two elements re- A separate experiment, with free accessdemonstration with
quired, the panel and the mirror. The to a panel and mirror,his Florence
made itBaptistery
clear to painting was i

264 Park, Brunelleschi's Discovery of Perspective's "Rule"

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tended to show how he created the image and camera apparatus; David Bomford and Martinof Art (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
Kemp for invaluable comments; Darren McKimm 1990) p. 344.
in a camera obscura (darkened room).
with the illustrations; and Ralph Delia Grotta with
Although the geometrical means to translation of Italian texts. 12. Sabine Melchior-Bonnet, et al., The Mirror, trans.
Katharine H. Jewett (New York and London: Rout
construct a perspective was not an out ledge, 2001) pp. 14-16.
come, the translation of that image into References and Notes
13. Benjamin Goldberg, The Mirror and Man (Char
the painting revealed perspective's basic lottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1985), pp.
"rule": vanishing points for parallel, hori Unedited references as provided by the author.
138-139; Alan Macfarlane, and Gerry Martin, Glass.
zontal lines exist at eye level. Brunelles 1. See Howard Saalman, ed., The Life of Brunelleschi
A World History (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 2002), pp. 21-24; Melchior-Bonnet [12] pp.
chi's discovery, in turn, influenced all by Antonio di Tuccio Manetti, trans. Catherine Enggass
18—19;State
and, Mark Pendergrast, Mirror Mirror (New
(University Park and London: Pennsylvania
subsequent perspectival developments University Press, 1970). York: Basic Books, 2003) p. 119 (footnote).
by artists and theorists alike. My proposal 14. Vincent Ilardi, Renaissance Vision from Spectacles
2. See Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, intro. and
presents a rational explanation for the notes Martin Kemp, trans. Cecil Grayson (Harmonds
to Telescopes (Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 2007) p. 43.
original function of the painting and mir worth: Penguin Books, 1991). Grayson's translation
was first published in 1972.
ror in the demonstration and the projec 15. Sara J. Schechner, "Between Knowing and Do
tion of an image within a camera obscura 3. Saalman [1] p. 42. ing: Mirrors and their Imperfections in the Renais
sance", Early Science and Medicine Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.
box using similar elements supports the 4. David Hockney, Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering
137-162 the
(2005).
proposal. The proposal also provides a lost techniques of the Old Masters (London: Thames and
Hudson, 2006), pp. 212-213. 16. Ilardi [14] p. 43.
new interpretation of the specific optical
17. Pendergrast [13] p. 118.
5. Samuel Y. Edgerton,Jr., The Renaissance Rediscovery
information provided by Manetti. Still,
of Linear Perspective (New York: Basic Books, 1975)
as with all historical reconstructions and 18. See Tsuji [6].
p. 145.
because of the lack of evidence for the
6. Shigeru Tsuji, "Brunelleschi and the Camera Ob 19. John H. Hammond, The Camera Obscura: A Chron
use of a camera obscura at Brunelleschi's icle (Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1981) pp. 1-10.
scura: The Discovery of Pictorial Perspective", Art
time, the proposal remains speculative.
History Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 276-292 (1990).

7. Saalman [ 1 ] p. 42.
Manuscript received 13 December 2011.
Acknowledgments 8. Saalman [1] p. 42.
The author is an independent art historian
I gratefully acknowledge the kind assistance9.pro
Saalman [1] p. 44.
based in Newcastle, Australia. Principal areas
vided by the following: the Opera di Santa Maria del
10. Saalman [1] p. 44. of research involve spatial and locale aspects of
Fiore, Florence, with arrangements on site; Sinclair
Park, the late Don Taylor, and NDF Camera House
11. For the geometrical implications of viewing works by 19th-century French artists Edouard
(Newcastle, Australia) with the camera obscura through
box the aperture, see Martin Kemp, The Science Manet, Edgar Degas and Gustave Caillebotte.

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Color Plate B

1
.fff fffif ' ■ "

i
s
»■

O
a

a 4.5 mm diameter aperture hole

Malcolm Park, photograph of image projected inside
The original photograph (see Fig. 4: Stage 3 in main ar
lens and an exposure time of 2 seconds, was computer-
matched that of the actual image projected onto the w
(© Malcolm Park)

212

This content downloaded from

106.213.173.30 on Wed, 07 Sep 2022 23:56:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms