Using an artist of various optical illusions
 

http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showpo...p;postcount=23

His interest in still-life by leading European artists ages 17-18, to the question "why looks Îáüåìíûå?" approached from a practical point of view. Ie I was not interested in the scientific explanation of the illusion Îáüåìíûå through applied sciences - physics or chemistry. The interest lay in the desire to understand what there is "smeared" the artist, in order to look Îáüåìíûå. Such things are not visible on the reproductions, or even a decent picture, one must look into living with a magnifying glass. Obehal Europe's leading museums and exhibitions on this topic. The basic technique is clear, - the correct proportion of subjects with distance, the correct composition, reducing the contrast of objects from the foreground to the back, the farther from the "source of light, the darker, etc.
The fact that I spotted for a European masters 17-18 centuries, this is my subjective opinion, ie personal vision.
What to see Îáüåìíûå, the eye is needed optical difference - size, tone /shade or artificially "throw" comparison, a virtual reference point. The absolute height of the work with shades of gray reached Willem Claeszoon Heda Still Life with their silverware. By analogy Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn with shades of black. This is one of the "secrets" fabulous amount.
Jan Davidszoon de Heem brought floral and fruit still lifes to unprecedented heights, by writing to the smallest details of flowers with absolute realism. Îáüåìíûå achieved mass points of comparison (details) for the eyes. Ie on the square decimeter is (sometimes stuck on) a dozen comparative elements. Type stalk roses with leaves in the foreground is visible to each filament with a tinge of green, the next piece, the same villi but less contrast, and tone. The number of botanical components increased in times of work on the beginning of 17 century. Fashion has come "to plant" insects that have added "points of comparison" to the eye. Still lifes are optically saturated with detail, not least because of the detailed prescription of the details. Oil carnival, but a fact. The fact that writing is multi-layered, with such detail, it is clear. In the late 17 th century "advanced workers" still life began to apply the glaze (painting technique method, which involves applying a very thin layers of transparent and translucent colors) to still lifes, which led to the next jump to the optical illusion Îáüåìíûå. The peak of this "technical innovation" was the work of Rachel Ruysch. This lady brought the theme of illusion of "stereo" in the still life to heights bordering with perversion and this "closed" theme floral still life in the "realistic" performance for the ages. First, it raised the level of prescription items, from my point of view, to the absurdities. Go on a piece on the nuances of photography can be seen only partially. She paints the details of the petals of a tulip, which are not visible to the naked eye. Only on 5x-10x magnifying glass. At the same level, she wrote and insects, with a reflection type screen in the eye of a fly. Personally for me, by looking at such work, the eyes are overloaded in such a glut and the image is well-read, swim.
Well then, this lady took up glaze .....
Believe it or not, the total optical stereo. Such work is hanging in the Kunsthalle in Hamburg.
Work absolutely spectacular not psychic, there is no heat. Taking photographs is very difficult. I'll try to lay out the fragments.
These things can be compared with the hours of Vacheron Constantin (Vacheron Constantin) by Tourbillon Skeleton.
These clocks miracle of mechanics and engineering time, the absolute aerobatics. But the concept of "clock" in the domestic as these hours are not applicable. optical perception of this work is like looking at the calendars with Îáüåìíûå picture on the reverse side. However, the romance, warmth and cordiality of still life was lost. The artist sought to Îáüåìíûå, not the lyrics.
Well this is my view on things, but how do you think?

sergejnowo, very interesting, thank you!

I think that in three-dimensional life, we do not see this amount of detail sought by the artists. We perceive the images, but looking at the details when necessary. Otherwise, the constant scrutiny can break the eyes and head, too ...:)
And the picture gives a surplus of parts, I agree with you very, dryness, kills the image, insists that they were looking at. Thus, the trees cease to be visible to the woods ...

Very interesting, Sergey, thank you very much!

A small addition: maybe you should pay attention to the fact that in the early XVII century Cornelius brought to Holland apparatus, called a camera obscura. It's known that Vermeer, for example, used it. Rembrandt, too, knew this device.
Concerning the masters of still life, I can not say, but one can assume that is the second of their generation (Klas, etc.) also resorted to his aid?
In general, the issue of "technical overpressure" old masters extremely, but I think is interesting.

And from me, thanks! Extremely interesting!
From tulip true "lid floats. (this is to what extent?)
Caravaggio is definitely a camera obscura used ..
I once did not even too lazy and the camera obscura in the bedroom did ... most wanted to check. Try a great lesson, especially if you have children-to 4m from the window diameter holes (in black paper, which box should be slapped-1-2 inches). As if one empirically determined. on the opposite wall hang a white screen.

Flowers usually drew 1:1.
In this case, the size of a tulip on the canvas, a maximum of 6 - 8 cm

[color="# 666686"]Added after 9 minutes[/color]
but why in the bedroom:)?

There, the window was the easiest and slapped the screen hang (purely technical reasons)
And besides there "izvinitezavyrazhenespozvaleniyaskazat" my art studio ..
(Yes, in vain mentioned)
Yes, very much jewelry, one can say the letter ..

Peter is in such an artist Jaroslav Gerzhidovich wrote a fairly large canvases 100x150, and the details can be studied with a microscope in the true sense .... that's like ....:) sorry no close-up photo - a real madness:)

and seen as Kate Medvedev imposes on the finished work (oil on canvas), the other material. eventually changed the image formu.stanovilos mobile. figures were now ready to get up here and go.
perhaps this is not new. but nonetheless interesting. In addition a catty their colors and furthermore that the image is changing, the same color.

Dear artmig1978, at the "shift" sometimes press.
The rules of the Russian language in this forum nobody canceled!

...........