Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Verne2 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:55:57 GMT

Hi Courtney,

Read your articles consistently and appreciate the catchy titles. Although it's been discussed that there really isn't a "zero-point perspective" per se - it is intriguing to follow or capture someone's work for a moment and create a discussion. It's much more interesting than "i love this" . Thanks for your efforts in continuing these postings.

Verne

Fused Glass Artist

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

julie236 — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:03:13 GMT

Thank you to all whose comments enlightened this topic rather than distracted. Julie H

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

rcampagna — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:31:12 GMT

Good information - I didn't know about this either until I read your article.

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Paul Sullivan — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:08:07 GMT

Thanks, Courtney. You're a good sport!

Thanks for putting up with a little monday morning quarterback talk. It was a good article.

Paul

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Courtney Jordan — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:13:48 GMT

I'm so glad this generated some discussion! Thank you so much--I have learned a lot and am happy for it! Thanks again!!

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Paul Sullivan — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:12:16 GMT

Courtney—

Interesting article on zero-point perspective. Allow me to pull a technicality on you —just for fun:

There is nothing called zero-point perspective in realistic art—unless we only apply the principles of perspective to geometric objects in a scene—or, unless we decide to ignore linear perspective. It is possible for a simple landscape to have many vanishing points that could be worked with if the composition demanded it. This is because good perspective not only helps us create the illusion of depth but it also tells us the sizes of things as they recede into the distance. Also, it helps us establish believable contour to a viewing-field that is not level. This is important in drawing roads, fences etc that may be on a hilly terrain.

Linear perspective refers to all the depth that can be captured by drawing—by line. Atmospheric perspective refers to the illusion of depth that can be achieved by the use of diminishing detail and color intensity as things are in distance. Good depth is established by using both.

Paul

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Winegarfineart — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:50:26 GMT

Love reading your posts BTW.

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Winegarfineart — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:48:13 GMT

With respect, I don't believe the premise is entirely accurate.

With your example of the landscape, perspective does play a role, just because it isn't as easy to define or replicate doesn't mean that the natural rules of perspective don't play a role.

There are six main points of vanishing: left, right, forward, back, zenith and nadir (up and down) and a point of origination (perspective viewpoint) Everything else is simply a combination of these planes (like viewing a scene from a 3/4 viewpoint we see something that diminishes with a combination of depth and lateral shift.) When considering a landscape we know these forces play a role, since they play a role in ANY space observed in the natural world, they are just much harder to evaluate because of the natural curve and disruption of the physical properties of nature.

All we have to do is look at a mountain range and notice that the mountains that are closer-up are larger than the mountains that are further away and we know that perspective is playing it's part...or that trees diminish with distance. Perspective is every bit as pertinent to the accuracy of a landscape scene as it is anywhere else, the reason it tends to be ignored is because it's less important, people can "wing it" much easier, because who's to say that THAT mountain has to be smaller than THIS one? People accept inaccuracy in a landscape much easier than other forms of expression simply because landscapes tend to have soft edges, non-linear planes and natural surfaces. That does NOT change the rules that govern their perception, it just makes it harder to understand.

In my experience zero point perspective is artwork that is accomplished by disposing of the information available in the natural world. Creating "flat" images, or seemingly two dimensional scenes. It's a distortion of the natural realm and can only exist in the mind, on a computer, or on a two dimensional surface. It cannot truly be achieved in three dimensions (sculpture) but that's another whole long discussion.

In my opinion the landscapes you posted do have some form of perspective. I would say Zenith probably plays the largest role (the cliffs diminish upward.) Other forces can be argued as well.

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

ekquinn — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:15:31 GMT

Courney,

I think that is more commonly called a free-hand multiple point perspective. You can introduce as many vanishing points and planes as you wish. The images shown have multiple points. Your eye can see if not damaged in multiple points, whereas if you have a stigmatism which is your eye pined by the CIA or others into a ellipse shape you see in 1 point perspectine and the pin a scanner rod sees like a panoramic camera (1950s invention to make poor poorer and rich richer). So, stock traders have them and rich watch their eyes and make trades with insider knowledge. FBI and DOJ spend most of their day making their trades having installed or broken into the tech. So, its human view of the rich 20/20. Those with stigmas in my world are called Patriots. People denied their right to see and profit from their own view: aparteid. So, its not worth zero, but as many views as our visible. Multi-point is worth more.

re: Zero-Point Perspective—Ever Hear of It?

Teresa Rogers — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:37 GMT

The author needs to learn to use proper descriptive adjectives other than "crappy."

Take me off your e-mail list.

Teresa Rogers