Bruno Postle's "Piranesi's Perspective Trick" explores how 18th-century Italian artist Giovanni Battista Piranesi created the illusion of vast, impossible spaces in his etchings. Piranesi achieved this not through complex mathematical perspective but by subtly shifting the vanishing points and manipulating the scale of elements within a scene. By strategically placing smaller figures and architectural details in the foreground against exaggeratedly large background elements, and by employing multiple, inconsistent vanishing points, Piranesi generated a sense of immense depth and disorienting grandeur that transcends traditional perspective rules. This artistic sleight-of-hand contributes to the dreamlike and often unsettling atmosphere of his famous "Carceri" (Prisons) series and other works.
Bruno Postle's 2019 Medium article, "Piranesi's Perspective Trick," delves into the intriguing methods employed by the 18th-century Italian artist Giovanni Battista Piranesi to create the illusion of immense and complex architectural spaces in his etchings, particularly within his series of imaginary prisons known as the Carceri d'invenzione. Postle meticulously dissects Piranesi's manipulation of perspective, arguing that Piranesi didn't merely employ standard one-point or two-point perspective, but rather a more complex and arguably flawed system that contributed to the disorienting and sublime atmosphere of the Carceri.
The article's central thesis revolves around Piranesi's strategic placement of "inconsistent vanishing points." Rather than adhering to the rigid rules of traditional perspective where all lines converge on a single point or a set of consistent points, Piranesi introduced multiple and often contradictory vanishing points within a single image. This technique, Postle argues, creates a sense of spatial ambiguity and vastness, as the viewer's eye is constantly challenged to reconcile the conflicting perspectives. The effect is a feeling of being lost within a labyrinthine structure that extends far beyond the boundaries of the frame.
Postle supports his analysis with detailed visual examples from the Carceri series. He highlights specific architectural elements like arches, staircases, and platforms, demonstrating how their lines converge on different and often irreconcilable points. He meticulously traces these lines, illustrating the inherent contradictions and demonstrating how they contribute to the overall impression of a vast, impossible space. The article goes beyond simply identifying these inconsistencies; it argues that these are not errors or oversights on Piranesi's part, but rather deliberate artistic choices intended to evoke a specific psychological and aesthetic response in the viewer.
Furthermore, Postle connects Piranesi's unconventional perspective to the broader cultural context of the 18th century, linking it to the growing fascination with the sublime, an aesthetic category concerned with experiences of awe, vastness, and even terror. The unsettling spatial ambiguity of the Carceri, Postle suggests, is precisely what makes them so compelling and contributes to their sense of the sublime. The article thus positions Piranesi not just as a skilled draftsman, but as a sophisticated manipulator of visual language, using perspective not merely to represent space accurately, but to evoke a particular emotional and intellectual response.
Summary of Comments ( 68 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43492562
Commenters on Hacker News largely discussed the plausibility and effectiveness of Piranesi's supposed perspective trick, as described in the Medium article. Some debated whether the "trick" was intentional or simply a result of his artistic style and the limitations of etching. One commenter suggested Piranesi's unique perspective contributes to the unsettling and dreamlike atmosphere of his works, rather than being a deliberate deception. Others pointed out that the described "trick" is a common technique in perspective drawing, particularly in stage design, to exaggerate depth and create a sense of grandeur. Several commenters also shared links to other analyses of Piranesi's work and the mathematics of perspective. A few expressed appreciation for the article introducing them to Piranesi's art.
The Hacker News post titled "Piranesi's Perspective Trick (2019)" has several comments discussing the article about how Piranesi created his impossible architectural drawings. Many commenters focus on the intentional ambiguity and dreamlike quality of Piranesi's work.
One commenter highlights the role of capriccio, a genre of art emphasizing fantasy and imagination, in understanding Piranesi's work. They suggest Piranesi wasn't necessarily trying to depict realistically possible structures, but rather exploring imaginative architectural spaces. This resonates with another commenter who notes Piranesi's influence on fantasy and science fiction, suggesting his work evokes a sense of awe and wonder at impossible structures, rather than a strict adherence to architectural realism.
Another commenter draws a parallel between Piranesi's work and M.C. Escher's, pointing out the shared interest in manipulating perspective and creating illusions. They propose both artists explore the boundaries of what is visually conceivable, even if physically impossible.
A significant point of discussion centers around the actual "trick" Piranesi employed. While the article suggests a specific method, some commenters propose alternative techniques Piranesi might have used. One commenter, for instance, suggests the use of multiple vanishing points, a technique common in pre-Renaissance art, might have contributed to the disorienting and expansive feel of his etchings. Another commenter speculates about the use of distorted grids and manipulated perspective lines, emphasizing the deliberate nature of the illusions Piranesi created.
Further comments discuss the potential influence of stage design on Piranesi's work. The commenter posits that techniques used to create the illusion of depth and grandeur on a stage could have informed Piranesi's approach to depicting architecture.
Overall, the comments reflect a fascination with the technical skill and artistic vision behind Piranesi's work. The discussion explores not only the "trick" itself, but also the broader context of capriccio, the influence on later artists like Escher, and the various techniques that might have contributed to Piranesi's unique and enduring style. They emphasize the deliberate artistic choices Piranesi made to evoke a sense of wonder and explore the boundaries of architectural representation.