Illustrate and critically assess the argument that linear perspective is (or is not) merely a pictorial 'convention' for representing depth.

Guidance

For general guidance about what is expected in your essays for this module, see the general criteria.

What Key Features Do I Look For? Familiarity with relevant texts Evidence - the stronger the better Argument - coherent and balanced Theoretical discussion - relation to relevant theories Understanding of relevant concepts Reflexivity - reflections on methodology Examples - insightfully analysed Style - readability and effective presentation

Please remember to avoid footnotes and to include an alphabetical list of 'References' which have been cited in the text (not a Bibliography of anything you have read for the essay). This list should include author's names, date, book titles (in italics), place of publication and publisher. Within the text always cite author's surname, date and page number. Double-space your text and number your pages. For more detailed notes on writing essays in this department, click here.

Advice for this particular assignment: Note that this question requires a considerable amount of reading for you to be able to map out the various standpoints on the issues involved. Note that just because something is described as representational convention does not mean that it bears no relation to the world. My own Semiotics book is a starting point. Gombrich is a major source on this topic: he has often been cited in evidence that perspective is highly conventional, but he later distanced himself from what he saw as 'conventionalism'. Kubovy is a key source too - note in particular his excellent online book. Read White and Edgerton as well. What about the cultures in which linear perspective has not had the same traditional dominance as it has in the West (cultural variability supports the argument that linear perspective is a convention)? The ancient Egyptians didn't employ linear perspective in their images; nor is there consistent perspective in mediaeval art (remember the 'upturned' tables'): artists within these cultures employed different conventions from those which have dominated representational art since the Renaissance. Don't neglect photography: is linear perspective purely 'conventional' here? Why do we feel less comfortable with horizontal convergence that with vertical convergence? Doesn't that support its conventionalism? Consider the issue of curvilinear perspective as an alternative pictorial 'convention'.

Note also that this is an assignment for which the inclusion of relevant pictorial illustrations is likely to be an advantage. Many of these are likely to be reproductions of paintings. Some carefully chosen examples of representational visual art from different historical periods and from different cultural contexts are likely to be useful. Use these to illustrate particular points. Contrasting one with another can also be productive. Incorporate illustrations electronically into your text (e.g. by scanning or downloading from the Internet) rather than literally cutting and pasting.

Some suggested reading

• Alberti, Leon Battista (1966) On Painting (trans. John R Spencer). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
• Chandler, Daniel (1994a) 'Codes'. In 'Semiotics for Beginners' [WWW document] URL http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents/S4B/sem08.html
• Chandler, Daniel (2001) Semiotics: The Basics (1st Edn). London: Routledge [NB: material on the code of pictorial perespective is not included in the second edition]
• Coren, Stanley, Clare Porac & Lawrence M Ward (1978) Sensation and Perception (International Edn.). New York: Academic Press
  
• Dunning, William V (1991) Changing Images of Pictorial Space: A History of Spatial Illusion in Painting. New York: Syracuse University Press
• Edgerton, Samuel Y (1975) The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective. New York: Harper & Row
• Gombrich, Ernst H (1977) Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. London: Phaidon
  
• Gombrich, Ernst H (1982) The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. London: Phaidon
• Gregory,. R. L & E. H Gombrich (Eds.) (1973) Illusion: In Nature and Art. London: Duckworth
• Hagen, Margaret (Ed) (1980) The Perception of Pictures, Vol. 1, Alberti's Window: The Projective Model of Pictorial Information. New York: Academic Press
• Hecht, Heiko, Robert Schwartz & Margaret Atherton (Eds) (2003) Looking into Pictures: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
• Hochberg, Julian E. (1964) Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  
• Innis, William M (1975) On the Rationalization of Sight. New York: Da Capo
• Kubovy, Michael (1986) The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (NB: see Kubovy & Tyler for excellent online version)
• Kubovy, Michael & Christopher Tyler (nd) The Arrow in the Eye: The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. [WWW document] URL http://webexhibits.org/arrowintheeye/index.html
• Nodine, Calvin F & Dennis F Fisher (Eds) (1979) Perception and Pictorial Representation. New York: Praeger
• Panofsky, Erwin (1997) Perspective as Symbolic Form. (trans. Christopher S Wood). New York: Zone Books
• Puttfarken, Thomas (2000) The Discovery of Pictorial Composition: Theories of Visual Order in Painting 1400-1800. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
• Romanyshyn, Robert D (1989) Technology as Symptom and Dream. London: Routledge
• Sekuler, Robert & Randolph Blake (1994) Perception, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill
  
• White, John (1967) The Birth and Rebirth of Pictorial Space. London: Faber & Faber
• Wright, Lawrence (1983) Perspective in Perspective. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul